National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: November 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63851-63911]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10no03-8]

[[Page 63852]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121; FRL-7551-3]
RIN 2060-AE82

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits
and work practice standards for new and existing miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process units, wastewater treatment and
conveyance systems, transfer operations, and associated ancillary
equipment and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by
requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities include toluene, methanol, xylene,
hydrogen chloride, and methylene chloride. Exposure to these substances
has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as
irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous membranes, effects on the
central nervous system, and cancer. We do not have the type of current
detailed data on each of the facilities and the people living around
the facilities covered by the final rule for this source category that
would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual
population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the
potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the
extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the
populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the
adverse effects do occur, and the final rule reduces emissions,
subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will reduce HAP
emissions by 16,800 tons per year for existing facilities that
manufacture miscellaneous organic chemicals.

DATES: This rule is effective November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. OAR-2003-0121 and A-96-04 are located at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air & Radiation Docket &
Information Center (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108,
Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals
Group (C504-04), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5402; electronic mail
(e-mail) address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\*\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................... 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, and Producers of specialty organic
3259, with several exceptions.. chemicals, explosives, certain polymers
and resins, and certain pesticide
intermediates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ North American Industry 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. 63.2435 of the
final 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. We have established official public dockets for this action
under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121 and A-96-04. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. All items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so
interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that
they have received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air
and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 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
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket also 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 view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A-
96-04.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated 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.
Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit January 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements

[[Page 63853]]

established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in civil
or criminal proceedings brought to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR
16154), and received 53 comment letters on the proposal. A background
information document (BID) (``National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'')
containing EPA's responses to each public comment is available in
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source categories?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing?
E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the emission limitations and work practice
standards?
C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
B. How did we change the compliance dates?
C. How did we develop the standards?
D. Standards for Process Vents
E. Storage Tank Standards
F. Standards for Wastewater Systems
G. Standards for Equipment Leaks
H. Standards for Transfer Racks
I. Pollution Prevention
J. Initial Compliance
K. Ongoing Compliance
L. Recordkeeping and Reporting
M. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
N. Change Management
O. Overlapping Requirements
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act

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 some area sources of HAP and to
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A
major source of HAP is a stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area under common control that has
the potential to emit greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10
tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) 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, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the
best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise
the list from time to time as better information became available.
Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several
of the original source categories on the list had similar process
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original
listing into one broad set of emission standards. Today's final rule
reflects the subsumption of the following source categories into a new
source category called Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing:
benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide
production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins
production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production,
hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate
plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine production, OBPA/1,3-diisocyanate production, alkyd
resins production, polyester resins production, polyvinyl alcohol
production, polyvinyl acetate emulsions production, polyvinylbutyral
production, polymerized vinylidene chloride production,
polymethylmethacrylate production, maleic anhydride copolymers
production, ammonium sulfate production--caprolactam by-product plants,
and quaternary ammonium

[[Page 63854]]

compounds production. Along with these 22 source categories, the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is also
defined to include other organic chemical manufacturing processes which
are not being covered by any other MACT standards.
Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF).

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted
From Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing?

The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing
emissions of HAP from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
facilities.
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities emit an
estimated 21,900 Mg/yr (24,100 tpy) of organic and inorganic HAP.
Organic HAP include toluene, methanol, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone,
ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and vinyl acetate. Inorganic HAP
emitted by this industry include hydrogen chloride (HCl) and some HAP
metals in the form of particulate matter (PM). The final rule reduces
HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
facilities by 68 percent. As a result of controlling these HAP, the
final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC). A summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to
these pollutants is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (67
FR 16154).

E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?

We proposed the NESHAP for the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and
provided an 85-day comment period. We received a total of 55 comment
letters. A copy of each of the comment letters is available in Docket
No. OAR-2003-0121 or A-96-04.
The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we
received on the proposed rule, as well as our reassessment of certain
data in the rulemaking record. Major public comments on the proposed
subpart FFFF, along with our responses to the comments, are summarized
in section IV of this preamble. A detailed response to all comments is
included in the Background Information Document for the promulgated
standards (Docket No. OAR-2003-0121). Comments on the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP will be summarized and
discussed in the subpart HHHHH promulgation package.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

Emission points identified from miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing production include process vents, storage tanks,
equipment leaks, transfer operations, and wastewater collection and
treatment systems. The affected source subject to this subpart is the
facilitywide collection of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
process units (MCPU), wastewater treatment and conveyance systems,
transfer operations, and associated ancillary equipment such as heat
exchange systems that are located at a major source of HAP as defined
in section 112(a) of the CAA. An MCPU includes a miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2550, and must
meet the following criteria: (1) It manufactures any material or family
of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1); it processes, uses, or
produces HAP described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain
process vents that are part of a chemical manufacturing process unit,
as identified in 40 CFR 63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not part of an
affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. The MCPU is
defined according to the equipment used to make the subject material,
and it includes storage tanks that are associated with the process.
New sources are created by reconstructing existing sources,
constructing new ``greenfield'' facilities, or constructing an addition
to an existing source that is a dedicated MCPU and has the potential to
exceed 10 tpy of an individual HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP.
Reconfiguration of existing equipment does not constitute
``construction.''

B. What Are the Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards?

The final rule regulates HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities that are determined to be major
sources. The standards apply to existing sources as well as new
sources.
Process Vents
The final standards for existing batch and continuous process vents
are set at a floor level of control and include requirements for
organic and inorganic HAP. For batch process vents, the final standards
require you to reduce uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum
of all batch process vents within the process by 98 percent if
uncontrolled emissions exceed 4,540 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (10,000
pounds per year (lb/yr)). No control of vents is required for processes
that are limited to uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/
yr) or less, as calculated on a rolling 365-day basis. A second control
option for batch vents is to reduce the sum of all batch process vents
within the process by 95 percent using recovery devices.
For continuous process vents, the final standards require control
of vents determined to have a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index
equal to or less than 1.9. The standards require you to reduce HAP
emissions by at least 98 percent by weight if the TRE of the outlet
gaseous stream after the last recovery device is less than 1.9, or to
reduce the outlet total organic compound (TOC) concentration to 20
parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less. For continuous process
vents, we reference the process vent standards contained in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS.
For inorganic HAP, we set the standards based on the floor and made
no distinction between batch and continuous streams. The standards for
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., HCl, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and
chlorine (C1₂)) were determined to be 99 percent control of
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP from the sum of all process vents in
processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions
equal to or greater than 1,000 lb/yr. The final rule also requires
control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions generated by the
combustion control of halogenated streams, which are defined by a mass
emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds of 0.45
kilograms per hour (kg/hr) or more. Specifically, hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP emissions must be reduced after the combustion device by 99
percent, to no more than 0.45 kg/hr, or to no more than 20 ppmv.
Alternatively, the halogen atom mass rate before the combustion device
may be reduced to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or to no more than 20 ppmv.
The MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents at existing
sources is no

[[Page 63855]]

emissions reduction, and we did not set a standard above the floor.
We defined the term ``process'' to include all equipment that
collectively function to produce a material or family of materials that
are covered by the source category. For batch process vents, we also
established an equivalent mass cutoff of 200 lb/yr in the final rule
that corresponds to the 50 ppmv concentration.
The new source standards for batch and continuous process vents
follow the same formats as described above. However, some of the
applicability triggers are more stringent. All batch process vents
within a process for which the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from
batch process vents exceed 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr) must be reduced by
either 98 percent using a control device or 95 percent using a recovery
device. All continuous process vents with a TRE of less than or equal
to 5.0 must be controlled by 98 percent. For inorganic HAP, the
standards for new sources are identical to the standards for existing
sources. The new source standard for PM HAP emissions from process
vents is 97 percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP
emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr. Control requirements for
halogenated streams are also the same as for existing sources.
Storage Tanks
The final rule requires existing sources to control emissions from
storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 cubic
meters (m3) (10,000 gallons (gal)) and storing material with
a HAP partial pressure of greater than 6.9 kilopascals (kPa) (1.0 pound
per square inch absolute (psia)). For new sources, the standards
require control of storage tanks having capacities greater than or
equal to 38 m3 (10,000 gal) and storing material with a HAP
partial pressure of greater than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). For both existing
and new sources, the required control is to use a floating roof or to
reduce the organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or more. We
also concluded in a revised analysis that for small storage tanks
(capacities <10,000 gal), that there is a ``no emission reduction''
MACT floor, and we did not specify a standard because the total impacts
of a more stringent regulatory alternative were found to be
unreasonable. Additionally, we concluded that the new source MACT floor
as proposed is appropriate (95 percent control of all tanks with
capacities of 10,000 gal and storing material with a HAP partial
pressure of 0.1 psia) for all tanks.
Wastewater
The final rule requires management and treatment of Group 1
wastewater streams and residuals removed from Group 1 wastewater
streams to be consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part
63, subpart G. For the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the
characteristics of Group 1 wastewater streams are defined with the
following characteristics at the point of determination (POD):
? Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration greater than 50 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) and a combined total annual average concentration of
soluble and partially soluble HAP of 10,000 ppmw or greater at any
flowrate.
? Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration greater than 50 ppmw and a combined total
annual average concentration of soluble and partially soluble HAP of
1,000 ppmw or greater at an annual average flowrate of 1 liter per
minute (lpm) or greater.
? Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 30,000 ppmw or greater and a total
annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
At new sources, the requirements are identical to those for
existing sources, but the applicability triggers on individual streams
are more stringent. In addition to controlling streams that meet the
thresholds for existing sources, control is also required for the
following streams at their POD:
? Process wastewater containing an annual average HAP
concentration exceeding 10 ppmw of compounds listed in Table 8 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart G, with annual average flowrate greater than 0.02
lpm.
? Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 4,500 ppmw or greater and a total
annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
The final rule also requires compliance with the requirements of 40
CFR 63.105 for maintenance wastewater streams, and compliance with the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.149 for liquid streams in open systems within
an MCPU.
Transfer Racks and Ancillary Sources
The final standards for transfer racks, maintenance wastewater, and
heat exchange systems are unchanged from the proposal, and they are
identical to the requirements in the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON).
For transfer operations, we are requiring the HON level of control for
transfer racks that load greater than 0.65 million liters per year (l/
yr) (0.17 million gallons per year (gal/yr)) of liquid products that
contain organic HAP with a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). For
each transfer rack that meets these thresholds, total organic HAP
emissions must be reduced by 98 percent by weight or more, or the
displaced vapors must be returned to the process or originating
container. For maintenance wastewater, you must prepare a plan for
minimizing emissions. For heat exchange systems, you must implement a
monitoring program to detect leaks into the cooling water.
Equipment Leaks
For equipment leaks, the final rule requires implementation of a
leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. For processes with no
continuous process vents, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT. For processes with at least one continuous process
vent, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
Alternatively, you may elect to comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 65, subpart F (i.e., the Consolidated Federal Air Rule).
Pollution Prevention
The final rule also includes a pollution prevention alternative for
existing sources that meets the control level of the MACT floor and may
be implemented in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice
standards described above. The pollution prevention alternative
provides a way for facilities to comply with MACT by reducing overall
consumption of HAP in their processes; therefore, it is not applicable
for HAP that are generated in the process or for new sources.
Specifically, you must demonstrate that the production-indexed
consumption of HAP has decreased by at least 65 percent from a 3-year
average baseline set no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar
years. The production-indexed consumption factor is expressed as the
mass of HAP consumed, divided by the mass of product produced. The
numerator in the factor is the total consumption of the HAP, which
describes all the different areas where it can be consumed, either
through losses to the environment, consumption in the process as a
reactant, or otherwise destroyed.

[[Page 63856]]

Emissions Averaging Provisions
The final rule incorporates the emissions averaging provisions in
40 CFR part 63, subpart G (the HON), with some changes to accommodate
batch process vents. For example, the final rule specifies that
uncontrolled emissions from batch process vents are to be calculated
using the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and performance
testing must be conducted under worst case conditions, as defined in
subpart GGG.
Alternative Standard
The final rule contains an alternative standard for process vents
and storage tanks. When emissions are controlled using combustion
control devices, the alternative standard requires control to an
undiluted TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less and an undiluted
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less. For
noncombustion control devices, the TOC concentration and total hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP concentration both must be reduced to 50 ppmv or
less. Continuous monitoring of outlet TOC and total hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP is required for compliance with this alternative standard.

C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Process Vents
The final rule requires calculation of uncontrolled emissions as a
first step in demonstrating compliance with the 98 percent or 95
percent reduction requirement for batch process vents. This initial
calculation of uncontrolled emissions is not required if you choose to
control process vents using the alternative standard or using specified
combustion devices. For continuous process vents, the final rule
requires calculation of the TRE index values using the procedures
contained in the HON for continuous process vents.
To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent.
For each continuous process vent with a TRE less than or equal to 1.9,
compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation must be
verified through performance testing. For batch process vents, initial
compliance demonstrations must be conducted in accordance with the
requirements in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGG). Specifically, performance tests are required for control
devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HAP, while either
engineering assessments or performance tests are allowed for control
devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance tests must be
conducted under worst-case conditions if the control device is used to
control emissions from batch process vents.
Storage Tanks, Transfer Racks, and Wastewater
To demonstrate initial compliance with emission limits and work
practice standards for storage tanks, transfer racks, and wastewater
systems, the final rule allows you to either conduct performance tests
or document compliance using engineering calculations. The initial
compliance procedures are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS
(National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices,
Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process),
subpart WW (National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks--
Control Level 2)), and subpart G (the HON), for control devices used to
reduce emissions from storage tanks and transfer racks, storage tanks
controlled with floating roofs, and wastewater sources, respectively.

D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

The final rule requires monitoring, inspections, and calculations
to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Typically, continuous monitoring
(i.e., every 15 minutes) of emissions or operating parameters is
required when using a control device or wastewater treatment device. If
operating parameters are monitored, operating limits must be
established during the initial compliance demonstration. Periodic
inspections are required for emission suppression equipment on waste
management units and floating roofs on storage tanks and wastewater
tanks. For processes that have Group 2 batch process vents (i.e., total
organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr), you must track the
number of batches produced to show that emissions remain below the
Group 1 threshold.
Continuous monitoring requirements for control devices are
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, with some exceptions specified
in the final rule. For example, the final rule requires that monitoring
data during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) be used
in daily averages, whereas subpart SS excludes such data from averages.
For batch process vents, you may request approval to set operating
limits for individual or groups of emission episodes using the results
of the performance test and applicable supplementary information. To
use this approach, you must provide rationale for your selected
operating limits in your precompliance report. As an alternative to
daily averaging, the final rule also allows averaging over a batch or
segment of a batch for control devices used to reduce emissions from
batch process vents. For control devices that do not control more than
1 tpy of HAP emissions, only a daily verification that the control
device is operating as designed is required.
Inspections for floating roofs must be conducted in accordance with
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. All monitoring and inspection requirements
for wastewater systems must be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part
63, subpart G.

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

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are outlined in the
General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as
the requirements in referenced subpart G (the HON), subpart SS
(National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices,
Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process),
subpart TT (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control
Level 1), subpart UU (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 2 Standards), and subpart WW (National Emission Standards
for Storage Vessels--Control Level 2). The sections of subpart A that
apply to the final rule are designated in Table 12 to subpart FFFF of
40 CFR part 63. Additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specific to the final rule. For example, you are required to submit a
precompliance report if you choose to comply using an alternative
monitoring approach, use an engineering assessment to demonstrate
compliance, or comply using a control device handling less than 1 tpy
of HAP emissions. The final rule also references the SSM recordkeeping
and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
Under these provisions, SSM records are required only for events during
which excess emissions occur or events when the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) was not followed.
Consistent with the General Provisions, you must submit an initial
notification, a notification of compliance status (NOCS) report, and
compliance reports. The initial notification is required within 120
days of the effective date of 40 CFR part 63,

[[Page 63857]]

subpart FFFF. That brief notification serves to alert appropriate
agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of
your affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance
actions. The NOCS report, which is due 150 days after the compliance
date of the NESHAP, is a comprehensive report that describes the
affected source and the strategy being used to comply. The NOCS report
is also an important aspect of the title V permitting strategy for
sources subject to subpart FFFF. Compliance reports are required every
6 months.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing sources to be 21,900 Mg/yr (24,200 tpy).
We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about
15,200 Mg/yr (16,800 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities are also VOC,
the NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels in combustion-based control devices and to
generate electricity and steam will increase secondary emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO_X), sulfur dioxide
(SO₂), and PM less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM₁₀) by about 870 Mg/yr (960 tpy). These impacts were
estimated assuming electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants,
steam is produced in natural gas-fired industrial boilers, and natural
gas is used as the auxiliary fuel in incinerators and flares.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital cost for
existing sources is estimated to be $127 million, and the total annual
cost for existing sources is estimated to be $75.1 million per year.
We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, that the annual cost burden will average
$3,150/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
This estimate was based on having 251 sources. Most of these costs are
for new and reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon
startup; other costs are for existing sources to prepare initial
notifications and plans. In the fourth year after the effective date,
existing facilities must begin to monitor and record operating
parameters to comply with operating limits and prepare compliance
reports, which will significantly increase the annual burden
nationwide.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP
will be less than described above because of the potential to use
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement
emissions averaging, or comply with the alternative standard. Because
the effect of such practices is highly site-specific and data were
unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost compliance practices
could be utilized, we could not quantify the amount by which actual
compliance costs might be reduced.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The economic impact analysis for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF,
shows that the expected price increase for affected output is 0.5
percent, and the expected change in production of affected output is a
reduction of 0.3 percent. One plant closure is expected out of the 207
facilities affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the
baseline economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect
the closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the
facility predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels
currently. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those
industries that produce miscellaneous organic chemicals affected by the
NESHAP, such as soaps and cleaners, industrial organic chemicals, and
agricultural chemicals.

D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be
generated from steam stripping of wastewater streams. No solid waste is
expected to be generated from controls of other emission points. We
expect the overall energy demand (i.e., for auxiliary fuel in
incinerators, electricity generation, and steam production) to increase
by an estimated 6.1 million gigajoules per year (5.8 trillion British
thermal units per year).

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?

Comment: Several commenters suggested using only one industrial
classification code, preferably the NAICS. The commenters also
recommended increasing the specificity of the NAICS codes to six
digits. As an alternative, one commenter suggested that the codes be
scrapped and applicability be based simply on the manufacture of
organic chemicals. Finally, the commenters requested exceptions for all
codes that refer to inorganic chemical manufacturing processes.
Response: We decided to retain both the SIC and NAICS codes in the
final rule. Although SIC codes are being phased out, we decided to
retain them because many industries still use these codes, and they
were the basis for the selecting industries that received the section
114 information request. We rejected the suggestion to use six-digit
NAICS codes because the list would be unnecessarily long; listing
exclusions is much shorter. For the final rule, we also decided to list
only the three-digit NAICS code for the chemical manufacturing
subsector (325) rather than the seven four-digit codes for industry
groups within this subsector because 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF,
applies to all of the industry groups. However, there are selected
manufacturing processes within both the SIC and NAICS industry groups
for which the final rule is not applicable. These processes are
exempted in the final rule by listing only the applicable six-digit
NAICS code. Thus, a process described by a listed six-digit NAICS code
is exempt even if it falls within an otherwise applicable SIC code. The
exemptions cover all but three of the processes described by NAICS
codes 325131, 325181, 325188, 325314, 325991, and 325992. The three
processes within these otherwise exempt categories are hydrazine,
reformulating plastics resins from recycled plastics products, and
photographic chemicals.
Comment: Two commenters stated that hydrazine manufacturing should
not be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, and the Hydrazine
Manufacturing source category should be delisted because within the
next few months, there will no longer be major sources within the
source category; emissions from hydrazine manufacturing are too low to
trigger controls; and hydrazine is an inorganic compound. If hydrazine
is not removed from the miscellaneous

[[Page 63858]]

organic chemical manufacturing source category, one of the two
commenters suggested that alternative testing methods are needed for
hydrazine and that the definition of TOC should be changed to include
hydrazine. The other commenter pointed out that the TRE equation is
meaningless for hydrazine manufacturing plants because it requires
sources to determine the hourly emission rate of organic HAP, and
hydrazine and the raw materials used to produce hydrazine (e.g.,
chlorine, caustic soda, and ammonia) are all inorganic.
Response: Subpart FFFF covers the manufacture of hydrazine because
it was one of the source categories subsumed, and the standards are
based on a broad variety of chemical manufacturing processes. We
developed separate standards for hydrogen halide and halogen emissions
that require 99 percent control when uncontrolled hydrogen halide and
halogen emissions exceed 1,000 lb/yr per process. However, hydrazine
itself is also a HAP. Therefore, process vents containing hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP would be subject to standards for hydrogen
halide and halogen emissions. Hydrazine emissions from process vents
would be subject to either the continuous process vent standards or the
batch process vent standards. For the purposes of calculating the TRE
for continuous process vents or mass emissions for comparison with the
10,000 lb/yr applicability threshold for batch process vents, the final
rule specifies that hydrazine is to be considered an organic HAP.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for photographic
processing chemicals such as fixers, bleaches, and developers because
HAP emissions from the processes are minimal, the equipment to
manufacture these compounds are mixing vessels, and the processes do
not appear to be included in the MACT floor. The commenter suggested
that administrative burdens associated with the final rule, including
calculating uncontrolled emissions, are not warranted.
Response: We have not exempted manufacturing processes for
photographic processing chemicals. The manufacturing equipment and
emission characteristics, such as mixing vessels and their associated
emissions from vapor displacement and evaporative losses, are
represented by processes contained in the database.
Comment: Many commenters supported the concept of treating process
vents from the production of energetics as a separate class of emission
streams subject to alternative requirements or a lesser degree of
control for safety reasons. Several commenters provided specifics on
the hazards posed by incineration-based controls and made
recommendations that included providing definitions for energetics,
waiving requirements for energetics or establishing a process where
safe control technology can be identified on a case-by-case basis, and
considering other control alternatives for compounds such as organic
peroxides, powdered metals, metal catalysts, and highly flammable gases
such as ethylene oxide and hydrogen. One of the commenters indicated
that condensation and carbon adsorption are not effective on some
compounds, such as nitroglycerine, which is unstable at low
temperatures and cannot be safely controlled by carbon adsorption
because it spontaneously combusts. The commenter supported a definition
for energetics that includes ``propellants, explosives, and
pyrotechnics.'' A second commenter suggested defining explosives as
material included in the U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous
materials tables (49 CFR 172.101) and listed as Hazard Class I
hazardous material to include all Class I materials, or specifically
materials in Divisions 1.1 through 1.6. The commenter indicated that
using this approach, explosive manufacturers would know who they are
because they are already shipping their materials as explosives;
manufacturers who make materials that have some energetic properties,
but are not shipped as explosives, would clearly be excluded. A third
commenter requested that other compounds also be included in the
subclass as explosives, particularly organic peroxides. The commenter
cited EPA's rationale in providing a similar exclusion from control
according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subpart CC
for organic peroxide producers. A fourth commenter agreed and requested
that EPA incorporate language already included at 40 CFR 264.1080(d)
(duplicated at Sec. 265.1080(d)) and 40 CFR 264.1089(i) (duplicated at
Sec. 265.1089(i)) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also
suggested that other streams exist in the industry that may also meet
this definition. For instance, reactive radioactive mixed waste
wastewaters generated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act and
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are exempted from closed conveyance
requirements per 40 CFR 264.1080(b)(6). The U.S. Department of Energy
requested this exemption because the radioactive mixed waste (RMW)
containers ``cannot be tightly sealed due to unacceptable pressure
buildup of hydrogen gas to levels which can . . . create a potentially
serious explosion hazard.'' The commenters requested that EPA include
language that allows facilities to document the hazardous nature of
their wastewater streams and petition for exemption from the wastewater
standards.
Response: In the proposal, we recognized that the 98 percent
control requirement for all process vents within affected processes
would force incineration technology, and that this technology might not
be appropriate for all process vent streams. Therefore, we also allowed
95 percent reduction of process vents if ``recovery'' control
technology was employed to achieve required reductions. We envisioned
at the time that the majority of this technology would be condensation.
We solicited comments in the proposal on what commenters would consider
achievable reductions from appropriate control technologies and how to
define energetics. With the exception of the nitroglycerin example, we
did not receive many comments that indicated that 95 percent control
could not be achieved in most cases. Regarding organic peroxides, the
add-on control requirement of RCRA, subpart CC, is 95 percent;
therefore, EPA's earlier decision that indefinitely stayed requirements
for producers of organic peroxides is consistent with the assumption
that even 95 percent control cannot be achieved in these cases.
Similarly, just as some reactive radioactive mixed wastewaters cannot
be safely managed in closed systems, as one commenter suggested, there
may be other situations that exist where sources may not be able to
achieve the control efficiencies required by the final standards
because of safety concerns. Based on the specific comments we received,
we have concluded that it is appropriate to narrowly define a class of
energetics and organic peroxides producers and allow, on a case-
specific basis, a procedure to request an alternative compliance
option. For these materials, the owner or operator must prepare and
submit documentation in the precompliance report similar to the
requirements in 40 CFR 264.1089(i) and 265.1089(i), explaining why an
undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, were installed on process
vents, wastewater, and storage tanks containing energetics and organic
peroxides, and describing what practices would be implemented to

[[Page 63859]]

minimize HAP emissions from energetics and organic peroxides
manufacturing.
We did not broadly define energetics to encompass reactive or
explosive conditions and the presence of highly flammable gases such as
ethylene oxide and hydrogen. Based on past rules, we realize that
combustion technology may not be appropriate in these cases, but other
control technologies achieving relatively high control efficiencies are
available and technically feasible.
Finally, the final rule includes a definition of ``energetics''
that is based on the definitions suggested by the commenters, and a
definition of ``organic peroxides'' that is taken from 40 CFR
264.1080(d):
Energetics means propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics and
include materials listed at 49 CFR 172.101 as Hazard Class I Hazardous
Materials, Divisions 1.1 through 1.6.
Organic peroxides means organic compounds containing the bivalent -
o-o-structure which may be considered to be a structural derivative of
hydrogen peroxide where one or both of the hydrogen atoms has been
replaced by an organic radical.
Borrowing from language contained in 40 CFR 264.1080(d), only
processes producing ``organic peroxides as the predominant products
manufactured by the process'' and manufacturing ``more than one
functional family of organic peroxides or multiple organic peroxides
within one functional family,'' with one or more of these organic
peroxides that ``could potentially undergo self-accelerating thermal
decomposition at or below ambient temperatures'' would be eligible for
identical treatment as energetics.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification that only solvent
recovery operations operating at chemical manufacturing facilities are
covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also
suggested adding a paragraph to the final rule to alert wastewater
treatment operators that the final rule might apply to them.
Response: We have not included the suggested language because
solvent recovery operations are in fact covered by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF, even if they are not located at a chemical manufacturing
facility. However, offsite operations that are part of an affected
source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, such as the Offsite
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (subpart DD), are not subject to
subpart FFFF, as specified in Sec. 63.2435(b)(3) of the final rule.
Secondly, offsite treatment facilities are not affected sources but
they may be required to treat wastewaters according to the provisions
in subpart FFFF. Operators will be notified by respective dischargers
of their obligation to treat in accordance with Sec. 63.132(g)(1), as
referenced in Table 7 to subpart FFFF of part 63.
Comment: A number of commenters identified concerns with the
``family of materials'' concept and requested that EPA either eliminate
it or make several changes. Several commenters suggested that the term
is inconsistent with the floor determination and the information
collection request (ICR), which allowed respondents to group materials
but did not require it. One commenter suggested that the family of
materials concept would discourage innovative or new and changed
products due to constantly changing calculations and control
requirements and increased administrative burden associated with
tracking families. The commenter also stated that the concept is
incompatible with flexible batch processes and could lead to division
of products and equipment that are emitting to the same vent or
groupings of products located in different buildings. The commenter
suggested that grouping be conducted on shared process vents rather
than families.
Four of the commenters suggested two key concepts to incorporate
into the definition: the need to be able to group together processes
with essentially identical emission sources and/or stream
characteristics; and the recognition that, under some circumstances,
functionality (e.g., end use or product characteristics) may be an
appropriate option in lieu of chemical composition. One of the
commenters also suggested that we revise the list of examples because
the proposed examples appear to be much broader categories of products
than what other parts of the definition seem to allow and apply the
concept only to batch process units in the same operational area.
One commenter stated that if EPA insisted on regulating equipment
based on a ``family of materials'' concept, it should be limited to
batch processes, and the emission threshold from the batch database
should be recalculated. Finally, one of the commenters suggested that
if EPA does not remove the family of materials concept, EPA must allow
facilities to exclude from a family of materials grouping all
individual products when the manufacture results in uncontrolled HAP
emissions of less than 500 lb/yr for nondedicated batch operations or
100 lb/yr for dedicated batch operations.
Response: The concept of ``family of materials'' is merely a
logical grouping to describe materials that have very similar
production and emission stream characteristics such that they can be
considered as a single process. The final rule bases its control
requirement on the sum of uncontrolled emissions within a process
grouping. Only processes with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions of
greater than 5 tpy are required to be controlled by 98 percent.
Therefore, the definition of process determines what sources are
included within a process grouping, which in turn affects applicable
requirements and must be clearly specified in the final rule. In the
proposed rule, we introduced the term family of materials to describe
materials that vary only slightly in molecular structure, functional
groups or other characteristics and are produced using procedures that
result in essentially identical HAP emission streams from essentially
identical emission sources. Our intent in requiring the grouping of
these materials is to keep operators from artificially breaking them up
into separate ``processes'' to avoid control requirements. We consider
this concept to be important and have retained it in the final rule,
with some modifications. Further, from our concept of ``standard
batch,'' we would say that each family of materials has the same
``standard batch.''
The standard batch concept was developed to allow owners and
operators to identify and characterize emission events associated with
a process. Once the emissions from each process are characterized, the
owner or operator can merely count the number of batches conducted per
year for each process to determine uncontrolled and controlled HAP
emissions and compliance requirements. The standard batch concept
provides a manageable way to document emissions; processes with the
same identical standard batch should be considered the same process.
We agree with the commenters that our proposed definition did not
adequately convey the concept of identical emission streams
characteristics. We note that as long as groupings are also based on
identical HAP emission characteristics, a grouping based on
functionality is still compatible with the concept of having only one
standard batch per process, which is a cornerstone of our compliance
implementation strategy. Therefore, we have incorporated the suggested
option so that the final definition requires identical emissions and
either similar composition or functionality.
We reject the argument that the database is flawed because we did
not require groupings when we surveyed

[[Page 63860]]

the industry. Although we did not require groupings, we encouraged
respondents to group materials and provided guidance ``that products
that involve different HAP or different process equipment in case of
dedicated processes should not be grouped together.'' This language is
basically consistent with the family of materials concept, and we note
that many processes in our database appear to be material groupings.
Therefore, we did not revise the MACT floor or proposed standards for
batch vents. We also have not incorporated the suggestion to exempt
``individual products for which the manufacture results in less than
500 lb/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions for nondedicated batch
operations'' because this language is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Although the commenter may not have provided information on individual
products with less than 500 lb/yr (e.g., the commenter could have
grouped families and emissions would be over 500 lb/yr and required to
be reported), we expect that some respondents applied the 500 lb/yr
reporting test on families of materials, based on the substantive
number of groupings reported. Thus, there is no basis for exempting
individual products for which the manufacture results in HAP emissions
below the suggested 500 lb/yr threshold. Finally, because the final
rule makes no distinction between ``batch'' and ``continuous''
processes, but rather on batch and continuous emissions, we do not
restrict the concept to batch ``processes.''
One commenter objected to the grouping of processes that are
conducted in separate buildings and areas. Our proposed and final
definition of process is not equipment specific. If the same product is
manufactured in more than one set of equipment, emissions from all
equipment must be considered when comparing to the 5 tpy mass
applicability limit. The final rule is written this way because many
manufacturers use nondedicated equipment to conduct their processes,
and there is the potential that processing can be moved from one area
to another easily to avoid regulation. Therefore, we do not restrict
the family of materials grouping according to location.
Comment: Many comments addressed various concepts in the definition
of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process. Several
commenters considered the definition to be too lengthy and confusing.
Some suggested removing statements that do not define the process.
Others asked for clarification of various terms used within the
definition such as ``nondedicated,'' ``nondedicated solvent recovery,''
``equipment,'' and ``product.'' Two commenters stated that ``product or
isolated intermediate'' should be changed to ``miscellaneous organic
chemical product.''
Several commenters objected to various requirements for
nondedicated formulation operations. For example, some commenters
opposed the requirement that all nondedicated formulation operations be
considered a single process. They noted that the ICR did not request
data for aggregated formulation operations and, thus, the MACT floor
was based on separate formulation processes. Other commenters requested
clarification of the term ``contiguous area'' as it relates to
formulation operations. Several commenters found the exclusion for
formulation operations that involve ``mixing'' to be confusing. They
also requested that all formulation operations be exempt, not just
those that are nondedicated and involve mixing, because none of these
operations result in many emissions. One commenter expressed concern
that estimating emissions for ``hundreds'' of small vents with minimal
emissions for all the various formulated products would be burdensome,
and control would be very costly. One commenter asked for an
explanation of why nondedicated formulation operations (and
nondedicated solvent recovery operations) are treated differently than
other nondedicated operations.
Several commenters stated that cleaning operations should be part
of the process only if they are routine and predictable because these
are the only cleaning operations for which emissions can be estimated
and included in a standard batch. Other commenters added that cleaning
should not be part of the process if it involves opening of process
vessels because there are no practical control methods for such events.
Response: Except for nondedicated solvent recovery and formulation
operations, miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes are
product based, meaning that all equipment used to manufacture a product
is to be included in determining process vent control. We think this
product-based approach is necessary because owners and operators may
have the flexibility to manufacture the same product in more than one
distinct area in a way that would avoid control under an equipment-
based standard. However, in the case of solvent recovery operations
such as distillation operations, defining a process by product would
mean that each separately recovered product would be a separate
process, which would result in fewer ``processes'' triggering the
control requirement for the same equipment. The same is true for
nondedicated formulation operations, where various finished materials
could be formulated for shipment or as final product. Considering these
two types of nondedicated operations as single processes also likely
reflects the way in which these operations are managed and permitted.
Further, we think respondents reported their data following this
convention. Often, these operations will vary only in the type of HAP
used. If the same HAP solvent is used for a variety of products, the
emission stream characteristics per batch will essentially be the same.
Therefore, considering a number of these operations as a single process
actually simplifies recordkeeping. Note, however, that the final rule
contains two key exemptions for batch process vents that may exempt
many of the emission sources contributing to ``minimal'' emissions that
the commenter is describing (i.e., 50 ppmv or 200 lb/yr).
Although our proposed definition excluded ``mixing,'' we meant to
exclude ``mixing of coatings,'' since this operation is to be covered
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. When a product is blended or mixed
with other materials in equipment that is dedicated to the manufacture
of a single product, the mixing is included as part of the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process.
We wanted to limit nondedicated solvent and formulation processes
to related operations within the same area, which is the reason for the
language regarding ``contiguous operations.'' However, we agree with
one of the commenters that the term contiguous also conveys other
meanings and, therefore, have revised the definition to refer to ``each
nondedicated solvent recovery (or formulation) operation.'' The intent
is to limit the process to operations located within a distinct
operating area.
We agree that nonroutine cleaning operations involving vessel
openings should not be considered as part of a process because they are
difficult to characterize within a standard batch. These emissions
would be attributed to startup and shutdown events, which are addressed
separately in the final rule. In some instances, however, cleaning that
is conducted within enclosed equipment between batches or between
campaigns should be considered part of a process; these operations
often consist of conducting solvent rinses through the equipment.
Emissions from these

[[Page 63861]]

operations are similar to emissions during processing and the final
rule's emission estimation procedures are suitable for these events.
Therefore, they can be included in a standard batch for a given product
and can be practically implemented.
Comment: Some commenters are confused about how a process ends with
the production of an ``isolated intermediate'' or product. One
commenter stated that a process should end with the production of an
isolated intermediate. Subsequent manufacturing operations using the
intermediate should be considered part of a different process, and
emissions from the operation should be managed separately from the
emissions for the isolated intermediate process. A second commenter
objected to the language in the proposal preamble that qualified the
meaning of ``stored'' to be long-term storage, or that the material
must be shipped offsite. The commenters stated that the term
``storage'' without qualification as to the length of storage or the
purpose of storage is sufficient. A third commenter was concerned that
the first sentence stated that an isolated intermediate is a
``product,'' but the second sentence stated that many ``isolated
intermediates'' many be produced in the manufacture of a product; and
that to be an isolated intermediate, a material must be stored, but the
definition of storage tanks specifically excludes tanks storing
isolated intermediates. The commenter stated that the definition needs
to define the end of an MCPU where that MCPU produces a material that
is not itself a commercial product. Two commenters wanted clarification
that the term isolated intermediate refers to an organic material and
suggested changing the term to ``isolated organic intermediate'; and
four commenters suggested that the term be limited to batch processes.
Response: The concept of isolated intermediate is to identify a
repeatable sequence of processing events that yield a material that is
stable and subsequently stored before it undergoes further processing.
The concept was introduced because many chemical processors have the
capability to conduct intermediate processing steps in non-sequential
order or even to conduct some processing steps offsite. Requiring an
operator to consider all processing steps or campaigns that result in a
final product may not yield a repeatable standard batch because of the
possibility that not all steps would be conducted every time, or that
some processing would depend on the availability of equipment and not
be sequential; therefore, we limit the definition of process to the
manufacture of an isolated intermediate. The concept that an isolated
intermediate must be stored is important in that, if there is no
``break'' in the processing operations, there is no end of a process.
We have, in the final rule, revised the definition of storage tank and
process tank. Storage effectively occurs when material is stored and
not processed over the course of a batch process. Therefore, we have
eliminated the inconsistency regarding storage so that a storage tank
can mark the end of a process if it is truly a storage tank and not a
process tank, surge control vessel, or bottoms receiver. To limit
confusion between listing the various vessel types that could be
construed as process tanks, we eliminated the descriptive terms drums,
totes, day tanks, and storage tanks.
We have not revised the definition to include the term ``organic.''
Our proposed and final definition clearly indicates that the material
must be described by 40 CFR 63.2435(b). We have not limited the term to
batch processes because the revised definitions of storage tank, surge
control vessel, and bottoms receiver, make this distinction
unnecessary. Additionally, we avoided basing any requirements on the
differences between batch and continuous ``processes'' because
processes can often contain both batch and continuous operations.
Finally, we agree that the term isolated intermediate also is necessary
to clarify that a material that is not itself a commercial product can
be considered a product of a process.

B. How Did We Change the Compliance Dates?

Comment: Several commenters stated that area sources that become
major sources should have 3 years to comply. The commenters indicated
that the proposed requirement to comply within 1 year deviates from 40
CFR 63.6(c)(5) of the General Provisions and requirements in other
rules, and the proposal preamble provides no justification for the
shorter time period. One commenter also noted that there is no
difference in the level of effort needed to comply relative to that for
a major source.
Response: We agree to reference the General Provisions directly for
compliance requirements for an area source that becomes a major source.
We consider the 3-year period that the General Provisions allows for
areas sources to come into compliance after becoming major sources to
be adequate time. The proposed rule was published on April 4, 2002 and
the anticipated compliance date is August 2006. Area sources becoming
major sources after the effective date will have 4-plus years to become
familiar with the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. An
area source that becomes a major source between the effective date and
the compliance date also has 3 years to come into compliance, except if
it adds a new affected source (e.g., a dedicated MCPU with the
potential to emit 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP).
Comment: One commenter operates an offsite treatment facility that
could receive wastewater from affected sources under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF. This commenter expressed concern with the requirement
that existing sources be in compliance 3 years after the effective date
of the final rule because they might not even receive affected
wastewater until sometime after the compliance date. Therefore, the
commenter suggested adding a new Sec. 63.2445(f) to read as follows:
``If you have an offsite treatment operation that receives affected
wastewater or residue prior to the effective date of this subpart, then
you must comply with the requirements for offsite treatment operations
in this subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date
of the subpart. If you have an offsite treatment operation that
receives affected wastewater or residue after the effective date of
this subpart, then you must comply with the requirements for offsite
treatment operations in this subpart prior to receipt of an affected
wastewater or residue.''
Response: The proposed rule specified that affected wastewater
(i.e., ``Group 1'' wastewater in the final rule) that is sent offsite
for treatment would be subject to Sec. 63.132(g) of the HON. Those
provisions require the offsite facility to comply with Sec. Sec.
63.133 through 63.147 for any Group 1 wastewater that they receive. The
commenter was concerned that an offsite treatment facility would be
considered to be an existing source and might be unable to demonstrate
initial compliance (i.e., implement the design and operational
requirements for waste management units and determine the performance
of control devices and treatment processes) by the compliance date if
the facility is not now receiving Group 1 wastewater and the operators
are unaware whether the facility may receive such wastewater at some
point in the future.
We did not add the suggested language because the proposed language
is clear and already satisfies the commenter's concerns. Although an

[[Page 63862]]

offsite treatment facility will be required to meet the wastewater
standards and associated compliance provisions if it accepts wastewater
from an affected source, the offsite treatment facility is not an
affected source. Therefore, the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.2445 does not apply to an offsite treatment facility. The burden is
also on the affected source operators to inform the offsite treatment
facility of their intent, determine if the offsite facility is willing
to handle the wastewater, and allow the offsite treatment facility time
to achieve initial compliance before the first shipment.

C. How Did We Develop the Standards?

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA unlawfully failed to set
standards for all HAP emitted by the source category. According to the
commenter, examples of HAP for which standards were not set include
inorganic HAP such as HCl, HF, Cl₂, potassium compounds; and
organic HAP such as maleic and phthalic anhydrides. As support, the
commenter referenced National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625
(D.C. Cir. 2000). Conversely, other commenters noted that the rule as
proposed regulates both inorganic and organic HAP, but they suggested
it should regulate inorganic HAP only when generated by the combustion
of halogenated organic HAP. Some of these commenters stated that
focusing on just organic HAP would be consistent with EPA's CAA section
114 data collection, the corresponding MACT floor analysis, and the
approach used in other MACT standards. Two commenters noted that EPA
recognized the inherent differences in the physical/chemical nature of
inorganic HAP and the different technologies required for their control
and specifically excluded inorganic HAP from the MACT floor analysis.
The two commenters also stated that other standards, such as the HCl
Production MACT, already adequately address inorganic HAP reduction
requirements. Should EPA decide to regulate inorganic HAP, two
commenters indicated that we should conduct additional MACT floor
analyses and then propose separate standards for organic and inorganic
HAP.
Response: At proposal, our intent was that all types of gaseous HAP
would be subject to the batch and continuous process vent standards.
Similarly, the proposed storage tank standards would apply to all
gaseous HAP, provided the maximum true vapor pressure for the total HAP
in the storage tank exceeded the specified threshold. However,
standards for the remaining emission source types are based on the
compounds regulated by the HON, which covered organic HAP only.
Standards for transfer operations and equipment leaks would also apply
to any individual organic HAP or combination of organic HAP that meet a
partial pressure threshold. Wastewater standards would apply only to
those organic HAP that have the potential to volatilize from water
based on modeling analyses conducted during development of the HON.
In response to the comments, we decided to develop a MACT floor and
standards for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., HCl, HF, and
Cl₂) emissions from process vents that are separate from the
analysis for organic HAP emissions. Based on data obtained in responses
to the original ICR, this MACT floor was determined to be 99 percent
control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP from the sum of all vents in
processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen emissions equal
to or greater than 1,000 lb/yr. We did not receive any information
regarding source reduction techniques for hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP. Generally, we would expect that these compounds are emitted as
products of reaction, and there may be less opportunity for source
reduction from these types of process vent emissions when compared to
organic HAP. However, we structured the MACT floor to consider measures
of reducing HAP emissions other than add-on control by basing the MACT
floor on a percent reduction above some uncontrolled emission value. By
default, implementing source reduction measures reduces ``uncontrolled
emissions.'' The performance level of 99 percent is the highest control
level achievable across the source category and is achieved by about 50
percent of the processes. The primary control devices used in the
industry are packed-bed scrubbers. Control efficiencies for hydrogen
halides (acid gases) and halogens depend on the solubility of the HAP
in the scrubbing liquid, which in turn will vary with the processes
that emit them. Control device vendors estimate that removal
efficiencies for inorganic gases range from 95 to 99 percent (EPA-CICA
Fact Sheet: Packed-Bed/Packed-Tower Scrubber). Therefore, although the
reported control efficiencies for some processes were in excess of 99
percent, levels greater than 99 percent may not be uniformly achievable
under all operating conditions. The best performing of these sources
are those with the lowest uncontrolled emissions from the sum of all
vents within the process. Therefore, we ranked all processes
controlling hydrogen halide and halogen emissions to at least 99
percent by their uncontrolled emissions, from lowest to highest. For
the best-performing 12 percent of processes, the median uncontrolled
emissions rate is 1,000 lb/yr.
In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we considered
whether sources may be using emission reduction techniques other than
technological controls for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to determine
whether such techniques might provide the basis for a floor. However,
we did not receive any information regarding emission reduction
techniques for these HAP in response to our ICR request that sources
provide such information. Accordingly, we do not have information
indicating that a sufficient percentage of sources are using emission
reduction techniques for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to enable us
to set a MACT floor based on such techniques. Generally, we expect that
because these HAP are emitted as products of reaction, there may be
fewer opportunities to reduce process vent emissions of these HAP than
there are opportunities to reduce emissions of organic HAP. (Organic
HAP are frequently present in solvents, and solvent use can often be
reduced; by contrast, reducing emissions of reaction products is more
difficult because fundamental process changes are typically necessary.)
Again, however, we do not have any information about the use of
emission reduction techniques with which to support a floor
determination.
Nevertheless, sources may use the pollution prevention option set
out in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, to meet the 1,000 lb/yr cutoff for
process vent emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP and thereby
comply with the relevant standards.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the same as for existing sources
because reported control efficiencies in excess of 99 percent are not
reliable. The final standards for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions from process vents are also based on the MACT floor because
the total impacts of a regulatory alternative were determined to be
unreasonable.
Based on comments received, we decided to review our available data
and develop a MACT floor for HAP metals in the form of PM, which acts
as a surrogate for them. Our database shows six facilities emit PM HAP
(specifically various metal compounds). One of the six facilities is
controlling emissions from three processes with three different control
devices, and the lowest control

[[Page 63863]]

efficiency is 97 percent. Since there are only six sources, the MACT
floor for existing sources is based on the average performance of the
top five sources. Since only one of the top five sources is
implementing control, we determined the MACT floor is no emissions
reduction. The final standard is based on the MACT floor because the
total impacts of a regulatory alternative were determined to be
unreasonable.
In setting the MACT floor, we considered whether some facilities
may implement emission reduction measures to reduce PM HAP emissions,
instead of using control technologies. We requested information on
emission reduction measures in our section 114 information request. Of
the approximately 40 different process changes reported, however, only
one facility reported a process change that could be directly
associated with PM emissions, which was described as ``removing a
hopper and vent.'' Further, we do not know whether this emission
reduction measure was effective in reducing PM HAP emissions.
Therefore, because we lack information indicating that a sufficient
number of process vents employ such measures to reduce emissions of PM
HAP to set a floor, we were unable to set a MACT floor based on
emission reduction measures.
The new source MACT floor for PM HAP emissions is based on the
control achieved by the best-performing source. As noted above, the
best-performing source is routing emission streams from three processes
to three different control devices: a baghouse (fabric filter), a spray
chamber and a rotoclone. The baghouse (fabric filter) achieves 97
percent control and this level is considered the emission control level
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source,
even though the other control devices report higher control
efficiencies. Particulate control efficiencies are influenced by
factors such as filtration velocity, particle loading, and particle
characteristics, which in turn vary depending on the processes that
emit them. Variations in stream characteristics make it difficult to
conclude that the higher reported control efficiencies for the other
control devices could be achieved in practice by all process vents that
emit PM HAP. Based on ranking of the sources achieving 97 percent
according to each source's lowest uncontrolled PM HAP emission level,
the best-performing source is the lowest uncontrolled PM HAP emission
level for any of the controlled processes (i.e., 400 lb/yr). Thus, the
new source MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents is 97
percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP emissions
greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr.
Comment: One commenter stated that we unlawfully exempted emission
points from regulation by establishing applicability cutoffs for both
new and existing sources. The commenter stated that the rule must apply
to all sources as required under the CAA, and, thus, cutoffs are
illegal; and for wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks,
EPA illegally borrowed cutoffs and MACT floors from other standards.
The commenter stated that standards must reflect the actual performance
of the best-performing sources in the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing category. The commenter objected to 98 percent control
levels for the process vent floors because reported control
efficiencies for many process vents exceeded 98 percent. Finally, the
commenter objected to the use of a work practice standard for equipment
leak controls. Conversely, several other commenters suggested that the
rule should specify additional thresholds below which a source would be
considered to have ``insignificant HAP emissions'' and be exempt from
control.
Response: We disagree that every emission point at a major source
must be required to reduce emissions. First, section 112(a) of the CAA
defines ``stationary source'' (through reference to section 111(a)) as:
``* * * any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits
or may emit any air pollutant * * *.'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7412(a)(3)
and 7411(a)(3)). The General Provisions for the MACT program define the
term ``affected source'' as ``the collection of equipment, activities,
or both within a single contiguous area and under common control that
is included in a section 112(c) source category or subcategory for
which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant standard is
established pursuant to section 112.'' (40 CFR 63.2). Nothing in the
definition of ``stationary source'' or in the regulatory definition of
``affected source'' states or implies that each emission point or
volume of emissions must be subjected to control requirements in
standards promulgated under section 112.
Further, even under the commenter's interpretation of ``stationary
source,'' the Agency would still have discretion in regulating
individual emission sources. Section 112(d)(1) allows the Administrator
to ``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory in establishing such standards * * *.'' We
interpret this provision for the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing NESHAP, as we have for previous rules, as allowing
emission limitations to be established for subcategories of sources
based on size or volume of materials processed at the affected source.
Under the discretion allowed by the CAA for the Agency to consider
``sizes'' of sources, we made the determination that certain small-
capacity and low-use operations (e.g., ``smaller'' storage tanks) can
be analyzed separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and
determining whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. In
addition, our MACT floor determinations for certain categories (e.g.,
process vents), which are set according to section 112(d)(3) of the
CAA, reflect the performance levels and ``cutoffs'' of the best-
performing sources for which we had information.
In general, our MACT floor determinations have focused on the best-
performing sources in each source category, and they consider add-on
control technologies as well as other practices that reduce emissions.
As part of our information collection effort, we requested information
on emission source reduction measures. We generally did not receive
information indicating that, for the emission points covered by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF, sources are currently reducing emissions by
means other than control technologies in sufficient numbers to support
a MACT floor based on source reduction measures. Accordingly, our
standards include a performance level that represents the level
achieved by the best control technology, and a cutoff that represents
the lowest emission potential that is controlled by the best 12 percent
of sources. Because the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
source category is broad in terms of the numbers and types of
processing operations that are covered, one challenge was to develop a
format by which all sources could be compared to each other to
establish the best-performing sources. The performance level generally
is of the format that can be applied to different types of control
technology and processes and is generally consistent with existing
rules. Thus, different types of control technology and emission levels
resulting from existing rules are captured in our MACT floor analysis.
The cutoff allows owners and operators that have reduced their
emissions below a certain level using one or more methods, including
process changes to reduce or eliminate pollution at the source, to
comply without additional control. Both performance levels and cutoffs
have been set to account for variations in emission stream

[[Page 63864]]

characteristics so that the standards can be applied consistently
across the source category. We believe that this approach is consistent
with the language of section 112(d)(3) that requires us to set the MACT
floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources.
Aside from the MACT floor determinations, we also provided a
pollution prevention compliance alternative to allow compliance with
the standards by demonstrating a reduction in HAP usage per unit of
product. This alternative enables owners and operators to comply using
emission source reduction measures.
The above discussion notwithstanding, we decided to conduct a MACT
floor analysis for storage tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal.
We concluded that the MACT floor for small tanks at existing sources is
no emissions reduction because we have information from only eight
sources that is not sufficient for setting a floor, and only one of the
best-performing five sources is implementing controls. We did not
specifically request information for tanks with capacities of less than
10,000 gal. Based on earlier EPA studies on the organic compound
manufacturing industry (EPA-450/3-90-025), we estimate the actual
number of storage tanks with capacities of less than 10,000 gal in our
source category to be 30 percent of the total number of tanks, or
approximately 500 tanks. The eight facilities reported information on
19 tanks, which is not enough information to set the floor. We also
based the standard for existing storage tanks with capacities less than
10,000 gal on the MACT floor, because a regulatory alternative was
determined to be unreasonable.
As for the new source MACT floor for storage tanks with capacities
less than 10,000 gal, the best-performing source is controlling
emissions from two small tanks by 98 percent with thermal incineration.
One tank has a capacity of 9,800 gal and is storing material with a HAP
partial pressure of 0.373 psia. The other tank has a capacity of 8,000
gal and is storing material with a HAP partial pressure of 0.574 psia.
We consider the first tank to be more stringently controlled because
partial pressure is the best indicator of emission potential and
controlling a lower partial pressure is an indication of greater
stringency. We compared this tank's characteristics to the new source
MACT floor for larger tanks, which was set at 95 percent control for
tanks with capacities of greater than 10,000 gal and storing materials
with HAP partial pressures of 0.1 psia or higher. From an analysis of
the tanks in our database, we concluded that the new source MACT floor
for larger tanks is more stringent than a floor based on 98 percent
reduction for tanks storing material with a HAP partial pressure
greater than or equal to 0.4 psia. Therefore, we concluded the new
source MACT floor as proposed to be appropriate for all tanks.
Finally, we do not have any information indicating that storage
tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal are reducing emissions
through measures other than control technologies. Accordingly, we
lacked sufficient information to set a floor based on such measures.
The MACT floors for organic HAP emissions from batch and continuous
process vents are 98 percent control because this level has been shown
to be uniformly achievable by well-designed and operated combustion
devices. During development of the HON, the EPA recognized that thermal
incineration may achieve greater than 98 percent reduction in some
cases, but test data show that levels greater than 98 percent may not
be uniformly achievable under all operating conditions (59 FR 19420,
April 22, 1994). Similarities in processes and resulting emission
streams in this industry with that of the HON source category processes
allow us to draw the same conclusions with regard to achievable
combustion control efficiencies. A review of the batch process vent
database indicates that most processes with overall control of 98
percent or greater are controlled using thermal incinerators and flares
(110 of 132 processes). We found the performance level for the MACT
floor to be 98 percent because as much as 15 percent of the 731
processes in the database were controlled by thermal incineration.
Similarly, a review of the continuous process vent database indicates
that most processes with overall control of 98 percent or greater are
controlled using thermal incinerators and flares (31 of 37 processes).
We found the performance level for the MACT floor to be 98 percent
because as much as 15 percent of the 202 processes in the database were
controlled by thermal incineration. We did not use reported control
efficiencies for scrubbers used to control organic HAP because we do
not know the fate of pollutants captured in the scrubber effluent. If
some of these pollutants are re-released to the air, then the reported
control efficiencies are not valid.
For equipment leaks, we considered various formats for the standard
and determined that a work practice standard based on an LDAR program
is the most feasible. Unlike other emission sources, leaking components
are not deliberate emission sources but rather result from mechanical
limitations associated with process piping and machinery. A well-
managed facility follows a preventive maintenance program to minimize
leaks, but in all practicality cannot guarantee that no leaks will
occur. Therefore, an emission standard for equipment leaks would not be
feasible to enforce or prescribe. At the same time, our data indicate
that the MACT floor for equipment leaks is an LDAR program. We also
developed regulatory alternatives on the use of more effective LDAR
programs. Finally, we note that enclosing components and venting to
control is allowed, but except in limited cases, we expect the cost to
be prohibitive.
Regarding the other commenters' suggestions, we note that the
standards for all types of emission points contain cutoff values,
consistent with our MACT floors, below which sources are exempt from
control. We also concluded that our information did not allow us to
develop a relationship between the various emission source types such
that we could identify ``insignificant'' sources merely by the sum of
actual emissions from process vents.
Comment: One commenter stated that we failed to properly evaluate
beyond-the-floor options. According to the commenter, in some cases, we
stated that the MACT floor option was the most stringent option without
identifying or evaluating other options (e.g., LDAR for equipment leaks
was assumed to be the most stringent option). In other cases, the
commenter noted that the beyond-the-floor option is simply a lowering
of the cutoff, and as discussed above for the MACT floor, the commenter
stated that cutoffs should not be allowed. Also, where 98 percent
control is the MACT floor, the proposed rule did not address why a
beyond-the-floor option was not selected where data showed higher
reductions are being achieved.
Response: Our beyond-the-floor options reflect the most stringent
performance levels that have been proven and can be applied
consistently across our source category. It is true that in many cases,
the beyond-the-floor option was based on simply lowering a cutoff,
similar to the discussion above for new sources. This is consistent
with the intent of section 112(d)(3) because better-performing sources
have lower cutoffs.
For example, for batch process vents at existing sources, we
evaluated the

[[Page 63865]]

feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would require 98 percent
control of batch process vents in processes with uncontrolled organic
HAP emissions between 5,000 and 10,000 lb/yr. We concluded that the
total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the HAP
emission reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by
this above-the-floor alternative is 145 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost
is about $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity
consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 5.1 million kilowatt hours
per year (kwh/yr). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist
flares is 6 million lb/yr. The incremental fuel energy consumption to
operate incinerators and flares and to generate electricity is 340
billion British thermal units (Btu) per year. Total CO, NO_X
and SO₂ emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is
about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts.
We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would
require 98 percent control of organic HAP emissions from continuous
process vents that have a TRE index value between 1.9 and 5.0 at
existing sources. We concluded that the total impacts of this
alternative are unreasonable in light of the HAP emission reductions
achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this above-the-
floor alternative is about 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is about
$29,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity consumption
to operate exhaust gas fans is 28 million kwh/yr. The incremental steam
consumption for steam-assist flares is 83 million lb/yr. The
incremental fuel energy consumption to operate incinerators and flares,
generate steam, and generate electricity is 2.4 trillion Btu per year.
Total CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions from combustion
of the additional fuel is 400 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or
solid waste impacts.
We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would
require 99 percent control of hydrogen halide and halogen emissions
from processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen emissions
between 500 and 1,000 lb/yr at existing sources. We concluded that the
total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the
emission reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by
this beyond-the-floor alternative is 1.0 Mg/yr, and the incremental
cost is about $90,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity
consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 31,000 kwh/yr, and the
incremental fuel energy consumption to generate the electricity is 300
million Btu per year. Total CO, NO_X, and SO₂
emissions from the combustion of the additional fuel is 0.27 Mg/yr. The
incremental wastewater generated from scrubber controls is 400,000 gal/
yr.
We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would
require 97 percent control of PM HAP emissions from process vents at
existing sources if the uncontrolled PM HAP emissions exceeded 400 lb/
yr. The only facility that meets the threshold for control is already
controlled. Thus, we concluded that the total impacts of this
alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission reductions
achieved for a model facility that was based on the characteristics of
the controlled facility. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by the
above-the-floor alternative for the model facility is 4.3 Mg/yr, and
the incremental cost is $68,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental
electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is about 24,000
kwh/yr, and the incremental fuel energy consumption to generate the
electricity is 230 million Btu per year. Total CO, NO_X, and
SO₂ emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is 0.2
Mg/yr. The quantity of solid waste generated could be greater if the
owner or operator elects to use a dust collector that includes water
sprays and discharges the collected dust in a slurry form.
For wastewater, we considered a regulatory alternative that would
require HON-equivalent control of wastewater streams at existing
sources that contain soluble HAP at concentrations between 15,000 ppmw
and 30,000 ppmw or that contain partially soluble or mixed HAP at
flowrates between 0.5 and 1.0 lpm. We concluded that the total impacts
of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission
reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this
above-the-floor alternative is 160 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is
about $8,500/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity
consumption to operate pumps is 45,000 kwh/yr. The incremental steam
consumption for steam strippers is 8.0 million lb/yr. The incremental
fuel energy consumption to generate electricity and steam is 12 billion
Btu per year. Total CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions
from the combustion of additional fuel to generate the electricity and
steam is 1 Mg/yr. There may also be solid waste impacts if condensed
steam and pollutants from the steam stripper cannot be reused. Small
amounts of wastewater in the form of blowdown from the cooling water
system for the condenser may also be generated.
For storage tanks at existing sources, we examined two regulatory
alternatives. First, for storage tanks with capacities of at least
10,000 gal, we considered an alternative that would require an internal
floating roof, external floating roof, or at least 95 percent reduction
if the partial pressure of HAP stored in the tank is between 0.5 and
1.0 psia. We concluded that the total impacts of this alternative are
unreasonable in light of the emission reductions achieved. The
incremental HAP reduction achieved by this above-the-floor alternative
is 30 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $19,000/Mg of HAP controlled.
The incremental electricity and fuel consumption rates for storage
tanks controlled with refrigerated condensers are 16,000 kwh/yr and 155
million Btu per year, respectively. Total CO, NO_x, and
SO₂ emissions from combustion of additional fuel is 0.13 Mg/
yr, and there would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. There also
would be no environmental impacts or energy impacts for other storage
tanks controlled with floating roofs. The second regulatory alternative
that we considered would require 95 percent control for storage tanks
with capacities less than 10,000 gal. We concluded that the total
impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission
reductions achieved. On an average tank basis, the incremental HAP
reduction achieved by this above-the-floor alternative is less than 0.5
Mg/yr, and the incremental cost would be on the order of $200,000/Mg of
HAP controlled. The incremental electricity and fuel energy consumption
rates for storage tanks controlled with refrigerated condensers are
about 3,100 kwh/yr and 30.0 million Btu per year, respectively. Total
CO, NO_x, and SO₂ emissions from combustion of the
additional fuel are about 0.025 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or
solid waste impacts.
Regarding the specific situation described by the commenter in
which we did not propose a more stringent option than the equipment
leaks LDAR program, we are not aware of any option that could be
applied consistently across the source category that would be
effective. For example, enclosing all components and venting to control
is allowed for process piping located inside of buildings or
enclosures, but except in limited cases, we would expect the costs of
such an option to be prohibitive. Furthermore, we have developed a
revised MACT floor that consists of an LDAR program consistent with the
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. We then

[[Page 63866]]

evaluated a regulatory alternative based on the more comprehensive LDAR
program specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We determined that
this alternative is reasonable for processes that have at least one
continuous process vent, but the costs are unreasonable for other
processes. Because the regulatory alternative is implementation of a
more stringent LDAR program, there are essentially no energy impacts or
non-air quality health and environmental impacts associated with the
regulatory alternative.
Finally, we did not evaluate a regulatory alternative for transfer
operations because the floor is at the most stringent known
requirements.
Comment: Several commenters recommended referencing the Generic
MACT at 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and WW, in their entirety to
specify all of the initial compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for process vents, transfer operations, storage tanks,
closed-vent systems, and equipment leaks. Commenters also recommended
referencing Sec. Sec. 63.132 through 63.149 (and their associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.151 and
63.152) of the HON for all of the requirements for process wastewater
streams and liquid streams in open systems within MCPU, although one
commenter recommended referencing the closed-vent system requirements
in subpart SS instead of the comparable requirements in the HON.
According to the commenters, the piecemeal referencing in the proposed
rule was confusing and it expanded some requirements relative to the
other subparts and missed some requirements in those subparts, which
resulted in inconsistencies. A particular concern was that the proposed
approach excluded the use of fuel gas systems and routing emission
streams to a process.
Response: To simplify and streamline the final rule and minimize
the compliance burden, we decided to provide more complete references
to the other rules with exceptions and additions only where needed. For
example, we modified the hierarchy of compliance applicability in Sec.
63.982(f) of the final rule; we overrode some of the initial compliance
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, with the procedures in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGG, for control devices used to control batch process
vents; we retained the vapor balancing alternative in subpart GGG for
storage tanks; we have specified different thresholds for Group 1
wastewater streams; we referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, rather
than 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for equipment leaks in processes with
no continuous process vents; we have specified periodic verification
procedures rather than continuous monitoring for control devices with
inlet HAP load less than 1 tpy; we have allowed averaging periods of
operating blocks as well as operating days for batch operations; we
retained the recordkeeping concept as proposed based on operating
scenarios; we retained the precompliance report; and we have specified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for ``deviations.''
Comment: Two commenters requested that sources be allowed to follow
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) for continuous process vents,
storage tanks, equipment leaks, and transfer operations so that a
facility with HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
processes can comply with a consistent set of requirements. The
commenters stated that the maximum use of standardized programs such as
the CAR will provide the maximum flexibility to a facility nominally
covered by multiple MACT rule requirements. One commenter stated that
the American Chemistry Council, EPA, and many other stakeholders
developed the CAR as the lowest burden, clearest, and most consistent
set of requirements possible for the chemical industry using the HON
model and understood that the CAR rule would be a model for future
chemical industry rules.
Response: The CAR was developed to provide a consolidated set of
requirements applicable to storage vessels, process vents, transfer
racks, and equipment leaks within the SOCMI. The CAR eliminates the
overlapping requirements of numerous new source performance standards
(NSPS) and NESHAP for the SOCMI that affect the same processes and
equipment. These same requirements have also been codified in the
Generic MACT at 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and WW. Therefore, a
facility with both HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
processes can essentially comply with the same set of requirements
(i.e., the HON processes would use the CAR, and the miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing processes would follow the Generic
MACT). We think that the reference in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, to
the Generic MACT standards already provides the opportunity to
consolidate across a facility, and except for equipment leaks, we do
not see a benefit to cross-referencing another identical set of
standards. We decided to specify in the final rule that you may elect
to comply with equipment leak requirements in the CAR because the CAR
is equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements in subpart
FFFF.

D. Standards for Process Vents

Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that we adopt the definition
of ``batch process vent'' from the Polymer and Resins IV NESHAP. The
commenters noted that this definition includes an applicability cutoff
level of 500 lb/yr. Some of the commenters justified using this cutoff,
or a similar mass-based limit, for the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing source category because 50 percent of batch process vents
in the database emit less than 500 lb/yr and account for only 0.2
percent of total emissions, it would be more enforceable, and it would
not be affected by dilution. One commenter suggested adding exemptions
for vents used less than 300 hours per year (hr/yr) or emitting less
than 1,000 lb/yr because batch processes often have hundreds of minor
vents that are used only occasionally or have minimal emissions, and it
would be prohibitively expensive to control these vents. Other
commenters supported the 50 ppmv minimum control threshold but
suggested that the concentration should be based on annual average vent
HAP concentrations and emissions averaged over numerous emission
episodes. They suggested using the existing annual average batch vent
flowrate and annual average batch vent concentration equations found in
Sec. 63.1323 of subpart JJJ. Many commenters also requested exclusions
for opening of process equipment for material addition, inspection, and
for health and safety vents. The commenters indicated that the
exclusion for opening equipment is supported by the EPA database
because those facilities that reported fugitive emissions from batch
operations did not control them. Furthermore, the commenters cited the
precedent of the Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations MACT, which
relieves operators of the requirement to vent emissions through a
closed-vent system during sampling of tank contents and removal of
sludges.
Response: In general, we agree with the comments relating to adding
a mass cutoff comparable to the 50 ppmv concentration limit. The use of
a mass cutoff may be simpler than calculating the concentration in some
situations, such as where emissions are known, but not the total volume
of air in the system or the duration of an emission event (e.g.,
emissions data developed from a mass balance). Being allowed to exclude
vents based on emissions in addition to concentration may simplify the
applicability determination procedure

[[Page 63867]]

in some cases. However, we determined that a lower cutoff than the 500
lb/yr is more appropriate. Of the approximately 1,500 process vents
with concentrations less than 50 ppmv, the average (mean) mass emission
rate is about 235 lb/yr. To establish a mass cutoff in the final rule
that corresponds to the 50 ppmv concentration, we rounded this value to
200 lb/yr. If more than one emission episode contributes to a process
vent, or if process vents within a process are piped or ducted
together, the cutoff applies to the combined total.
The averaging period for determining the concentration was not
specified in the proposed process vent definition; however, the
proposed rule essentially required emissions to be calculated for each
emissions episode. This means the averaging time for a concentration
determination is over a single emission episode. The equations found in
Sec. 63.1323 of subpart JJJ would divide the total mass per batch by
8,760 hr/yr, which is not our intent. Therefore, we did not revise the
definition to be consistent with the definition in subpart JJJ, but we
have clarified that the concentration cutoff applies to emission
episodes. The mass cutoff discussed above also applies to emission
episodes. Thus, if a gas stream from any one episode meets the 50 ppmv
cutoff, the process vent is affected.
Streams with less than 50 ppmv were specifically exempted from the
vent definition to limit the introduction of dilution gases containing
little to no HAP into emission streams as a means of diluting them and
exempting them from control. Allowing averaging between streams of less
than 50 ppmv with other emission episodes, as the commenters suggested,
would effectively allow such dilution.
Therefore, we do not allow averaging across episodes to yield an
average concentration for the purposes of determining whether a stream
is affected.
We have decided to exempt some emissions releases that result from
safety and hygiene practices because it is unlikely that these vents
would reach the 50 ppmv concentration level. The exemption also will
relieve owners and operators from the burden of demonstrating that they
meet the concentration level. Specifically, the definition of ``batch
process vent'' excludes flexible elephant trunk systems that draw
ambient air (i.e, systems that are not ducted, piped, or otherwise
connected to the unit operations) away from operators that could be
exposed to fumes when vessels are opened.
We also note that although equipment openings without the presence
of capture hoods and vents were not addressed specifically in the
proposed rule, they would be subject to the provisions for certain
liquid streams in open systems inside processes. Under these
provisions, if the equipment meets the specified design and operating
characteristics (e.g., a tank with a capacity greater than 10,000 gal),
then routine opening of the equipment would not be allowed. Also,
opening events that are not routine and conducted as part of
maintenance activities can be addressed in the facility's SSMP.
Finally, regarding the commenter's request to exempt emergency vents,
the SSMP can be used to address these events as well.
Comment: One commenter stated that MACT floors must be based on an
average of existing regulatory limits, not on actual emissions data.
According to the commenter, using actual emissions data violates
section 302(k) of the CAA.
Response: We disagree with this comment. Nothing in section 302(k)
of the CAA prohibits the use of actual emission data in setting MACT
floors. The MACT floor was developed using all available information.
The evaluation included, but was not limited to, information about
existing regulatory limits. We also collected information from sources
in the industry and States during 1997 that was the source of actual
emissions data. A CAA section 114 ICR was sent to 194 facilities in the
spring of 1997. The facilities which received the ICR were identified
from EPA's 1993 toxic release inventory database which included
information on facilities in SIC codes 282, 284, 286, 287, 289, or 386.
Information on continuous processes came from emissions and permit
databases from the following States: Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
Illinois, Missouri, California, and New Jersey.
Comment: One commenter stated that the methodology utilized in
determining the MACT floor for batch processes fails to accurately
reflect the processes of the adhesives and coatings industry because,
to the best of the commenter's knowledge, none of the 11 companies that
own all of the sources in the MACT floor analysis makes adhesives.
Other commenters noted that air-bearing vents, which cannot safely go
to a flare or incinerator, should be considered separately from non-
air-bearing vents because it is much harder to obtain high control
efficiencies without using a combustion device. One commenter requested
that spray dryer operations and post-spray dryer solids handling
systems be excluded from the MCPU because the commenter is unaware of
any facilities currently controlling such emission streams, it would be
very costly to control such streams, and spray dryers are not
specifically discussed in the MACT floor documentation.
Response: In the development of our database, we solicited
information from a number of industries thought to be representative of
this source category. Processing operations such as the synthesis of
resins or polymers that are used as bases for adhesives are expected to
result in emission sources with characteristics similar to other
specialty chemical processes in this source category. Therefore, we
expect the emission stream characteristics of the adhesives industry to
have similar characteristics as those of other industries covered by
this source category and have, therefore, not developed a separate
category for this industry.
We disagree with the suggestion to consider air-bearing vents
separately from other vents in the development of the MACT floor.
Roughly half of the process vents in our batch process vents database
have concentrations of 50 ppmv or less. These streams, which include
many air-bearing streams from dryers and other sources, were exempt
from the definition of process vent in the proposed rule because we
recognize that it is not technically or economically feasible to
require control of these streams. For process vents containing greater
than 50 ppmv HAP, the final rule also allows compliance by meeting an
outlet concentration limit as an alternative to a percent reduction
standard. This alternative is provided to assist owners and operators
in complying with the standards for low concentration streams.
Our process vent database includes spray dryers at two facilities.
It also includes over 25 records for ``dryers'' at other facilities,
some of which may pertain to spray dryers. As noted above, our database
also includes air-bearing vents, which have characteristics likely to
resemble those of emission streams from spray dryers. Therefore, we
determined that these emission sources are represented in our database,
and that the MACT floor properly sets the level of control for these
vent streams.
Comment: Various commenters indicated the MACT floor for continuous
process vents should be recalculated because of the following perceived
problems with the database and analysis: a process vent at the BP
Chemicals, Wood River plant (formerly Amoco Petroleum Additives),
should be

[[Page 63868]]

removed from the database because no such vent ever existed; the
database includes errors such as emission points that are not
continuous process vents; the analysis was conducted on a facility
basis rather than a vent basis; flowrate assumptions are too high; the
sample population is too small; and the database is skewed by a
disproportionate number of sources in ozone nonattainment areas.
Response: To develop the MACT floor for continuous process vents,
we relied on available information from State permitting databases. To
the best of our knowledge, these data reflect the sources that will be
subject to requirements for continuous process vents. Although many of
these facilities are in ozone nonattainment areas, the commenters have
provided no evidence that this is not representative of sources that
will be subject to the final standards. We disagree with the
commenter's assertion that the analysis should be conducted on a vent
basis rather than a facility basis. Our analysis was designed to
identify what level of emissions would not be controlled by facilities
that would be considered the best-controlled sources in the industry.
That level of emissions, characterized by the vent with the highest TRE
index value below which all other vents were controlled, became the TRE
cutoff value for the facility. We consider the analysis valid and in
keeping with the statutory MACT requirements of CAA section 112(d)(3).
Regarding our assumption of flowrate in cases where no flowrate data
were available, we note that our assumed flowrate is the average of the
available flowrates. In response to the objection that the sample
population was too small, we note that it is derived from many of the
major chemical producing States, and we estimate that it represents
about half of the affected sources with continuous process vents.
However, we agree that the vent at the BP facility should be excluded
because it never existed. Without this vent, the TRE threshold for
control of continuous process vents is now 1.9 rather than 2.6.
Comment: Several commenters requested that control devices
installed prior to April 4, 2002, be grandfathered from the 98 percent
reduction requirement if they achieve 90 or 95 percent control of
organic HAP. The commenters noted that many companies may be faced with
abandoning existing control devices and installing new devices to get
only an incremental reduction in HAP emissions, and they noted that
other MACT rules (e.g., pharmaceuticals and pesticide active
ingredients) allow the continued use of existing controls that have a
lower efficiency than the standard. One commenter also indicated that
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) have difficulty in achieving 98
percent control.
Response: Since the final rule provides less stringent control
requirements for control devices that can recover materials for reuse,
we assume that the bulk of the concern related to control devices is
for incinerators that will not meet 98 percent. Devices such as RTO are
typically installed to control high air flow, low concentration
streams. Therefore, while this type of device may not meet the 98
percent control requirement, the final rule also allows sources to
demonstrate compliance with an outlet concentration limit, which may be
achievable by an RTO when the uncontrolled HAP concentration in the
vent stream is low. We note also that the batch vent requirements
contain options for monitoring parameters in lieu of correcting outlet
concentration for 3 percent oxygen (O₂). Finally, the final
rule includes a provision that may enable some sources to group
nondedicated processing equipment together and comply only with the
requirements in the rule that apply to the primary product made in the
equipment.

E. Storage Tank Standards

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed definition
of ``storage tank'' is inconsistent with the ICR, MACT floor
calculations for both storage tanks and process vents, EPA
applicability determination documents, and other MACT rules; likely to
lead to compliance confusion; and likely to force replacement of many
existing floating roof tank controls at huge costs for negligible
benefits. Many of the commenters recommended revising the storage tank
definition to match the actual assignment of tanks in the storage tanks
database and recalculating the MACT floor.
Response: The definition of ``storage tank'' in the proposed rule
was based on the treatment of process tanks and storage tanks in the
pharmaceuticals industry, a predominantly batch industry. The basis for
only considering raw material feedstock tanks as true storage tanks was
that the product tanks were seldom of the size at which the storage
tank capacity cutoffs were set in many rules, and that a predominant
number of tanks were used within processes as feed tanks from one unit
operation to another. As such, emission events from these tanks usually
would be calculated based on displacement resulting from filling the
tank, usually on a per batch basis, and included in the operating
scenario for an entire process. Emissions, therefore, were tied to the
number of batches produced, as the material was transferred into and
out of these tanks during each batch. We consider these tanks to be
true process tanks and expect that the batch processors in the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry would agree with
this treatment.
We recognize, however, that this industry contains significant
numbers of continuous processors. We also recognize that this industry
is more varied than the pharmaceuticals industry and that there are
more tanks that are of a size and function that would be treated as
storage tanks in other rules. For example, product rundown tanks and
product storage tanks are not based on the number of batches, and
material remains in the tank or is ``stored'' on a fairly continuous
basis. The tanks are not filled and emptied during batch operations.
These tanks are storage tanks and are recognized as such in the final
rule.
We agree that the responses to the section 114 ICR would be based
on the HON and NSPS definitions, and we have revised the storage tank
definition to be consistent with the HON and NSPS. Although defined
separately, the HON treats surge control vessels and bottoms receivers,
types of tanks found in predominantly continuous processes that
function in receiving material between continuous operations, exactly
like storage tanks. We kept these terms and requirements in the final
rule, but revised the definition of surge control vessel to be
consistent with the definition of continuous process vent (i.e., surge
control vessels must precede continuous reactors or distillation
operations). We also added a definition for ``process tank'' to clarify
which tanks we would consider as part of the batch process vent
standards. The changes do not affect MACT floors; they only change
applicability under the storage tank standards or under the batch
process vent standards.

F. Standards for Wastewater Systems

Comment: Numerous commenters urged elimination of the requirement
to enclose sewers and tankage for conveyance to treatment of wastewater
streams with primarily soluble HAP. The commenters stated that soluble
HAP do not volatilize significantly from wastewater streams upstream of
biological treatment, but the cost to suppress emissions would be
significant. Some commenters suggested exempting from control those

[[Page 63869]]

wastewater streams that contain soluble HAP unless at least 5 percent
of the total soluble HAP is emitted from the waste management units.
Commenters were particularly concerned about this issue for the final
rule because much more methanol is present in miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing processes than in processes subject to the HON,
particularly because 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, applies to HAP that
are used as solvents. Another commenter claimed the available data do
not support a floor of HON-equivalent control for streams with HAP
concentrations less than 10,000 ppmw.
Response: We considered the request for separate treatment of
wastewater containing soluble HAP. We began by reviewing the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing wastewater database, and
we determined that wastewater containing soluble HAP compounds are
generally managed separately from wastewater containing partially
soluble HAP compounds in this industry. This separate treatment by the
industry justifies the evaluation of separate floors in accordance with
the commenter's requests. For the 60 facilities in the miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing wastewater database, there are a total
of 364 records (streams), excluding streams with HAP that are not
listed on Table 9 to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 (the HON), HAP
concentrations less than 1,000 ppmw, and HAP concentrations greater
than or equal to 1,000,000 ppmw. Of this total, 192 of the streams
contain partially soluble or a mixture of partially soluble and soluble
HAP, and 172 of the streams contain only soluble HAP. Only 26 streams
contain a mixture of soluble and partially soluble HAP.
When we reevaluated the floors separately, we found that for the
partially soluble and mixed streams, data show that considerably more
than 12 percent of the streams that meet either of the HON cutoff
criteria also received treatment consistent with HON treatment
requirements (i.e., the best-performing miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing sources are those that implement HON-equivalent
procedures). Of the 53 streams with flowrates greater than 1 lpm and
concentrations of partially soluble or mixed streams less than 10,000
ppmw, nine are managed and treated according to HON levels. Therefore,
we revised the flow cutoff in the MACT floor from 10 lpm to 1 lpm for
streams with concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and
less than 10,000 ppmw; the other cutoffs of greater than or equal to
10,000 ppmw at any flowrate for partially soluble and mixed streams are
unchanged. Another 42 streams had flowrates between 0.1 and 1.0, but
only one was controlled. Therefore, we concluded that a sufficient
number of streams below the cutoffs were not controlled to support a no
emissions reduction floor determination.
We also identified a MACT floor for the 172 wastewater streams at
33 facilities that contain only soluble HAP. We ranked the 33
facilities based on the lowest concentration and flowrate of a
wastewater stream that was managed and treated according to the HON
requirements. The top five facilities were found to manage and treat
all their soluble HAP containing wastewater consistent with the
requirements in the HON. The median of the lowest concentrations in
wastewater streams at these five facilities was found to be 30,000
ppmw. The lowest soluble HAP load for any stream at the five MACT
facilities was 1,663 lb/yr (which we rounded to 1 tpy). Therefore, we
determined that the MACT floor consists of the management and treatment
requirements in the HON for wastewater streams containing at least
30,000 ppmw of soluble HAP and at least 1 tpy of soluble HAP.
Wastewater streams with soluble HAP above these concentration and load
cutoffs are considered Group 1 wastewater streams in the final rule. We
also evaluated a beyond-the-floor alternative based on controlling
streams with mixed HAP at flowrates greater than 0.5 lpm and streams
that contain soluble HAP at concentrations greater than 15,000 ppmw.
The total impacts of this alternative were determined to be
unreasonable. Therefore, we set the standard for existing sources at
the MACT floor.
For new sources, we determined the MACT floor for wastewater
containing soluble HAP to be a concentration of 4,500 ppmw at the 1 tpy
load. The 4,500 ppmw corresponds to the lowest concentration of a
stream containing only soluble compounds that was managed and treated
in accordance with the HON. The 1 tpy load cutoff was not lowered in
going from the existing source standard to the new source standard
because this level already represents the lowest load cutoff of any
stream at the five MACT facilities and, therefore, represents the
performance of the best-controlled similar source.
Comment: Two commenters indicated the proposed rule lacks criteria
for evaluating affected wastewater streams from batch process units and
specialty chemicals manufacture. One of the commenters suggested
revising the rule so that the emission thresholds for wastewater are
determined over a representative batch cycle. To accomplish this, the
commenter suggested that the following definitions be added to the
rule:
? ``Annual average'' means the average over a designated 12-
month period of actual or anticipated operation of the MCPU generating
wastewater, except for units that are flexible operations or part of
flexible operations. For flexible operation units, ``annual average''
means the average for a standard batch that is representative of the
designated 12-month period of actual or anticipated operation of the
MCPU generating wastewater.
? ``Standard batch'' means a batch process operated within a
range of average or typical operating conditions that are documented in
an operating scenario. Emissions from a ``standard batch'' are based on
the production activity or product that result in the highest mass of
HAP in the wastewaters generated by the process equipment during the
batch cycle.
The second commenter noted that the proposed rule refers to Sec.
63.144(c) for establishing the annual average flowrate for wastewater
streams (i.e., total wastewater volume divided by 525,600 minutes in a
year). The commenter supported this for continuous process units, but
recommended that the rule use criteria from 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG, for batch process units since the wastewater streams from batch
operations may only be operational a few months per year.
Response: The format for applicability is annual average flowrate
based on the potential maximum amount of operating hours per year
(i.e., 8,760). Although the procedure was developed for continuous
processes, it can be applied to batch processes. When multiplied out,
the total flow of wastewater equivalent to 1 lpm and 8,760 hr/yr equals
0.14 million gal/yr (530 m 3 /yr). We recognize that the proposed rule
did not contain guidance on how to interpret annual average for batch
processes although our definition of wastewater stream described a
single wastewater stream as being discarded from an MCPU through a
single POD. Our intent with this language was to include all wastewater
streams from single processes that were discharged through a single POD
as one single wastewater stream. In the HON, annual average
concentration is the total mass of compounds listed in Table 9 to
subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 that are in the wastewater stream during
the designated 12-month period divided by the total mass of the
wastewater stream during the 12-month period. There is no separate
consideration in the HON for

[[Page 63870]]

multipurpose batch operations or POD that serve numerous processes
because the equipment is part of a flexible operation.
For 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, however, we based the MACT floor
on data from wastewater streams that were developed based on our
proposed definition of wastewater. Therefore, the definition of annual
average is based on wastewater streams from a POD from a single MCPU.
For flexible operations (e.g., multipurpose equipment not dedicated to
any single process), we have incorporated the concept of a family of
materials that considers as a single product the manufacturing
processes of multiple materials that are related. Additionally, we
consider ``nondedicated solvent recovery operations'' as a single
process. Therefore, in these two circumstances, the definition of
wastewater stream should be based on the total mass and flow out of the
POD from the sum of all operations considered within the family of
materials or within the recovery process. In all other cases, the flow
and concentration of HAP should be based on the total flow of
wastewater and mass of HAP from all batches of a single process.
The final rule requires a manufacturer of a family of materials in
flexible operation units to determine the annual average using a
procedure consistent with that described by the commenter.
Specifically, the worst-case product would determine the standard
batch, and the total flow of wastewater would be based on the total
flow of wastewater generated by all batches manufactured in any 12-
month period. However, if materials manufactured in the flexible
operations fell among more than one product not considered part of a
family of materials, we would consider these separate processes, and
the annual average concentration and flow would be limited to the
characteristics of each process.
Comment: Consistent with comments on the definition of the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, one commenter
suggested revising the definition of ``maintenance wastewater'' to
clarify that wastewater from routine cleaning operations occurring
within a batch process is not considered maintenance wastewater.
Another commenter noted that some cleaning operations are performed for
equipment preparation and to remove inorganic scale from the equipment
on an occasional, though somewhat regular basis. The commenter observed
that these operations are performed between batches, though not between
every batch or even between batches of different grades. They are
performed when maintenance is needed or plugging is evident. The
commenter asked for clarification that the types of cleaning operations
that do not generate maintenance wastewater are those performed between
batches for the purposes of changing grades and not those done to
prepare equipment for maintenance or to remove inorganic foulants.
Response: We agree with the commenters regarding the need to
exclude non-routine cleaning operations from other process wastewater
streams and have included them in the definition of ``maintenance
wastewater.'' This issue is analogous to the issue of including vents
from routine cleaning operations as process vents and covering other
types of events under the SSM provisions.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption from the offsite
certification requirement in 40 CFR 63.132(g)(2), (3) and (4) for any
facility electing to discharge wastewater streams to a RCRA-permitted
treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) under 40 CFR parts 264
and 265. The commenter asserted that a RCRA TSDF should be presumed to
be acceptable compliance equipment for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing facilities, and this presumption should be explicitly
stated in the final rule.
Response: We agree that RCRA TSDF satisfy the compliance
requirements in the final rule. The proposed subpart FFFF explicitly
stated that performance tests, design evaluations, and related
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would not be required when a
hazardous waste incinerator is used to meet emission limits. This
provision is retained in the final rule through the reference to Sec.
63.988(b)(2), and it applies to offsite treatment facilities as well as
affected sources. To simplify and clarify the requirements for offsite
treatment facilities, the final rule states that the affected source
may indicate in its notification of compliance status (NOCS) report
that it is shipping the wastewater to an offsite treatment facility
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.138(h), and that the
wastewater will be treated as hazardous waste; this documentation may
serve as the certification from the offsite treatment facility.

G. Standards for Equipment Leaks

Comment: Three commenters stated that the docket does not support
our conclusion that the HON LDAR program is the MACT floor. Two of the
commenters also opposed our approach of assigning a single LDAR program
to each facility. They noted that facilities do not always use the same
LDAR program for all of their processes. According to one commenter,
there also are numerous errors and inconsistencies between various
background memoranda, the section 114 ICR responses, and the equipment
leaks database that EPA distributed to industry, with no documentation
in the docket to explain the differences. After obtaining new
information from some of the facilities in the database, the commenter
saw no support for a determination that HON-equivalent controls
establish the MACT floor (i.e., of the estimated 1,220 processes, only
34, or 2.8 percent, appear to have HON-equivalent programs). The other
two commenters indicated that the floor (and standard) should be based
on either the LDAR program in the SOCMI NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV) or subpart TT of 40 CFR part 63 (the Generic MACT).
Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the
available data, we decided to determine the MACT floor on a process
basis because some facilities do not implement the same LDAR program
for all of their miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
processes. Therefore, we decided to reevaluate the MACT floor on a
process basis. Before revising the analysis, we also reviewed the
specific data entries that were disputed by the commenters.
Regrettably, the database that was made available to the industry
was not consistent with the final database that we used to develop the
MACT floor prior to proposal. As a result, many of the discrepancies
identified by commenters are addressed simply by using the correct
database.
We also reviewed other changes that the commenter recommended and
made corrections to the database under the following two circumstances:
when a process is subject to the HON so that only the batch process
vent emissions are subject to subpart FFFF, and when a facility
representative informed the commenter that a non-HON LDAR program or no
program is implemented for a miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process. After making the revisions, we found 51 of 1,139
processes are controlled to the HON LDAR (i.e., the best-performing
LDAR program in use at miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
sources), or 4.5 percent controlled. Based on this result, we could not
justify a MACT floor at the HON level of control.
Therefore, we reexamined the processes subject to other LDAR
programs to develop a revised MACT

[[Page 63871]]

floor. A few processes are subject to LDAR programs required by the
State of Louisiana, but most other processes subject to LDAR programs
are implementing various programs required by the State of Texas or the
program in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For this analysis, we considered
the Texas programs and the subpart VV program to be essentially
equivalent because they all require only sensory monitoring for
connectors. These programs also are equivalent to the program in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT. Only LDAR programs designated as audible/visual/
olfactory (e.g., not Method 21 monitoring) were not considered at least
equivalent to subpart TT. We found that 236 of the 1,139 processes, or
21 percent, were controlled at least to the subpart TT level.
Therefore, we set the floor based on the requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT.
Based on the revised MACT floor, we conducted an analysis of the
cost of going above the floor to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU,
program. In conducting this analysis, we revised our estimated
uncontrolled emissions for our model processes by using the initial
leak rates submitted by the industry in their comments. At the leak
definitions of 500 ppmv for connectors and valves and 1,000 ppmv for
pumps, we calculated leak rates of 0.35 percent for connectors, 6.47
percent for pumps, and 1.66 percent for valves from the data submitted
by the industry. We also compared these leak rates and their resulting
emission rates to data collected in the development of the Polymers and
Resins IV NESHAP and found good agreement. The polymers and resins
industry leak rates were 0.61 percent for connectors, 8.71 percent for
pumps, and 1.4 to 1.8 percent for valves. To estimate reductions
achieved by the LDAR programs, we assumed that the reduction achieved
by the subpart UU program would be equal to the emissions estimated at
the performance level of the program. We assumed that the subpart TT
program would be half as effective as subpart UU for pumps, valves, and
connectors, and that the reductions for pressure relief valves, open-
ended lines, and sampling connections would be the same under both
programs.
We also revised elements in our cost analysis to address commenter
concerns. The revised analysis assumes that a facility required to
implement an LDAR program will hire a subcontractor based on our
understanding that this is the preferred and common alternative over
the implementation of an in-house program. The analysis also made use
of revised cost data from the project files of the Polymers and Resins
IV NESHAP.
The revised cost analysis shows that for processes with continuous
process vents, the cost of the subpart TT program (the MACT floor) is
$3,200/Mg, the cost of the subpart UU program is $2,800/Mg, and the
incremental cost to go beyond the MACT floor to the subpart UU program
is $470/Mg. These costs are considered reasonable. Conversely, for
batch processes, the costs of the beyond-the-floor option were
determined to be unreasonable. Therefore, we decided to set the
standard at the MACT floor for processes with only batch process vents,
and we selected the beyond-the-floor option of subpart UU for processes
with at least one continuous process vent.
Comment: Several commenters generally supported the pressure
testing option in Sec. 63.1036(b) of subpart UU, which requires that
new or disturbed equipment be tested for leaks before use. However, the
commenters are concerned that Sec. 63.1036(b)(1)(iii) could be
interpreted as requiring facilities to conduct leak tests whenever
flexible hose connections are changed as part of a reconfiguration to
make a different product or intermediate. The commenters stated that
these leak tests would be burdensome because (1) changing flexible
hoses to make different products may occur as frequently as daily or
weekly, which would substantially increase the cost of conducting LDAR
programs and take away from operating time, resulting in lost
production and sales; (2) more frequent leak tests would also result in
more emissions because the equipment must be purged to conduct the
tests; and (3) flexible hoses that have been water tested would often
have to be flushed with solvent prior to startup, which would add more
turn-around time and increase waste generation. According to one
commenter, connecting flexible hoses in different configurations is the
type of ``routine'' seal breaks that were not intended to trigger LDAR
pressure testing requirements. Thus, the commenters recommended
revising Sec. 63.1036(b)(1)(iii) to exempt all routine seal breaks of
flexible hoses from LDAR requirements. One commenter also recommended
that pressure testing be allowed as an option for sources that comply
with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT.
Response: We agree with the commenters that pressure testing each
time process equipment is reconfigured only by changing flexible hose
connections at a transfer station is excessively burdensome and likely
to lead to more emissions than it prevents. Therefore, the pressure
test option in the final rule allows this type of routine disturbance
without the requirement to conduct a new pressure test. Since the final
rule allows compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU, as an alternative to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TT, an owner or operator may comply with the pressure testing option in
subpart UU as an alternative to the requirements of subpart TT.

H. Standards for Transfer Racks

Comment: One commenter indicated the MACT floor for transfer racks
was established incorrectly and stated that we have no section 114 ICR
data to support the transfer racks MACT floor because this information
was not requested for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
source category. The commenter indicated that using transfer rack data
from HON sources or Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) NESHAP sources is
not appropriate for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
source category, even if it does streamline the compliance process. The
commenter noted that the Group 1 requirements of subpart G of the HON
apply to a different source category manufacturing different chemicals
in continuous, generally high-volume processes. The commenter claimed
we made a ``leap of faith'' in assuming that the emission and control
data for one source category are appropriate to another totally
distinct category. The commenter could find no documentation indicating
that subpart G continuous process load rates and vapor pressure cutoffs
are applicable to batch subpart FFFF facilities. The commenter argued
that setting a MACT floor using ``existing available data'' from a
different source category is inconsistent with CAA requirements and
requested that an actual transfer rack MACT floor determination be made
prior to establishing the subpart FFFF control requirements.
Response: The MACT floor was based on the HON requirements. We did
not have any specific data from our source category, but we relied on
information that many of the facilities in this source category are co-
located with facilities subject to the HON. The commenter objected to
our assumptions because the HON applies to continuous, high volume
production processes. Although subpart FFFF applies to many processes,
batch specialty chemicals are a major component of the source category,
and we agree that individual products are typically manufactured in
lesser volumes than typical products in the HON source category.
However, we

[[Page 63872]]

note that transfer operations, which by definition consist of the
loading racks for tank trucks and rail cars, are more specific to the
size and type of vessel being loaded than the process that generates
the products.
These tank trucks and rail cars are standard in size and
configuration so that the same tank trucks and rail cars would be
expected to carry material from either source category. Further, pumps,
loading arms, and vapor collection and control equipment are not as
much dependent on the process that generates the materials as the
products themselves which are composed of either pure HAP or solutions
containing significant amounts of HAP.
Our data indicate that 60 percent of the facilities that contain
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes also contain
processes subject to the HON. Additionally, we would expect that
transfer racks located at these facilities would be used to load
materials from both HON and miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing processes. Therefore, we consider it reasonable to assume
a MACT floor based on the requirements of the HON.
The HON standards were established based on the lowest yearly
loading rates that are controlled in the source category. Because the
HON source category manufactures at typically higher volume production
than what would typically be expected in the miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing source category, and control requirements are
based on the rack weighted average partial pressure of HAP, it offers a
conservative approach to the MACT floor when applied to the batch
specialty chemical industry. Therefore, only transfer racks that load
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing products containing
significant amounts of HAP are affected by the control requirements.

I. Pollution Prevention

Comment: Three commenters stated that the pollution prevention (P2)
option should be broadened to allow more nondedicated batch operations
or groups of nondedicated batch operations to use P2 for compliance.
The commenters maintained that calculating and tracking HAP factors for
individual nondedicated processes would not be viable for small
operations. One commenter was concerned that only dedicated solvent
recovery operations may be included in a P2 demonstration; nondedicated
solvent recovery operations may not be considered in conjunction with
the processes for which they recover solvents for the P2 alternative
standard. Similarly, another commenter stated that the proposal is not
viable because waste solvents from numerous nondedicated batch
processes are collected and refined at a central recovery unit, and
Sec. 63.2495(b)(2) of the proposed rule would preclude the merging of
nondedicated solvent recovery with other processes. The commenter
suggested including all of the operations in the calculation of a HAP
consumption factor (including nondedicated recovery operations that
receive and recover solvents for the operations). In addition, the
commenter suggested that the production rate should exclude isolated
intermediates to appropriately reflect the benefits achieved when
measures are taken to eliminate isolation of intermediates. Because the
boundaries are well defined, the commenter indicated that such an
approach would be clearer to implement and enforce. To incorporate this
approach, the commenter suggested adding a statement to the rule that
says you may comply with the P2 option for multiple processes and
associated recovery operations if the Administrator approves your P2
methodology submitted in the precompliance report.
Response: After examining the approach suggested by the commenters,
we have concerns that it would not be consistent with the goals of P2
and also would not preserve the reductions in HAP consumption that
would occur if the P2 alternative were limited to each product. The
commenters suggested facilitywide groupings to demonstrate overall
reductions in the HAP consumption factors. One of our major concerns
stems from the fact that specialty chemical facilities will not
manufacture the same products from the baseline years to the
contemporaneous period. Under their suggested grouping concept,
however, a baseline factor could be developed from a different set of
products than those in the contemporaneous period. In this situation, a
facility could demonstrate a reduction in the HAP factor by simply not
manufacturing products that have high HAP consumption. Although these
efforts could result in a net benefit to the environment, they are not
considered P2 strategies and, therefore, an owner or operator should
not take credit for these changes. Secondly, using the same groupings
concept, a manufacturer could effectively reduce the overall usage of
HAP in a production process in any given year, but increase the HAP
factor for that product and still meet the grouping target reductions,
but not the target reductions on individual product lines. This would
effectively allow an owner or operator to comply with a P2 alternative
that could increase the inefficiency and waste within a process.
Therefore, combining processes or groups of processes as suggested by
the commenters is not appropriate, and we have not revised the
alternative per the commenter's requests.
We also clarified language regarding merging processing steps
conducted offsite to onsite for the purposes of redrawing a process
boundary and claiming a reduction in consumption. For example, a
solvent recovery step conducted offsite or as part of another process
cannot later be moved onsite or to another process and used to claim a
reduction in consumption. Such a strategy does not result in true
emission reductions, but rather is a result of moving process
boundaries.
Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the proposed P2
option would not allow for the generation of HAP other than HAP being
used in the process. They noted that based on the definition of
``consumption'' and Sec. 63.2495(b) of the proposed rule, if the HAP
used by the process are not the same as those generated in the process,
then the generated HAP must meet the otherwise applicable standards.
One commenter suggested revising the definition of consumption to
include HAP generated in the process, and the other commenters
suggested incorporating generated HAP into the calculation of the HAP
factor or the target HAP reduction.
Response: We do not agree with the suggested changes. The P2
alternative specifies that HAP generated in the process that are not
introduced into the process and part of the consumption factor must be
controlled per the standard requirements. This restriction is needed to
ensure that reductions anticipated from the implementation of the
alternative will occur. Consider a situation where the incoming
quantity of HAP is considerably less than the amount of HAP generated
in the process. Further, suppose the entire quantity of HAP generated
in the process is emitted through a process vent (i.e., no waste or
wastewater). If the P2 alternative were to allow the quantity of HAP
generated to be considered as part of the consumption factor, then the
P2 standard could be met by capturing and recovering only 65 percent of
the HAP emitted, which may not preserve the reductions we anticipated
from the implementation of the standards as written. Therefore, we have
not

[[Page 63873]]

modified the alternative according to the commenters' requests.

J. Initial Compliance

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed
requirements to complete initial compliance demonstrations and submit
the NOCS report by the compliance date are unworkable and unreasonably
and unfairly shorten the 3-year compliance period. Based on the
commenters' experience, the entire 3-year period is needed to permit,
plan, design, procure, install, and shakedown the equipment necessary
for MACT compliance. In addition, the 150-day period after the
compliance date that other rules allow before the NOCS report is due
allows facilities to properly test their control systems, perform
necessary shakedown operations, and set the parametric operating limits
using actual data. The commenters requested that the final rule defer
to the General Provisions regarding the timeline for initial compliance
demonstrations and allow the NOCS report to be submitted no later than
150 days after the compliance date. Another commenter requested that
area sources that become major sources be allowed up to 3 years to
comply with the final rule because the level of effort would be the
same as for any existing source when the rule is promulgated.
Response: We accept the argument that some facilities with numerous
processes and controls may need the full 3 years from the promulgation
date to the compliance date to bring all of the equipment on-line
before completing the initial compliance demonstration. Therefore, we
decided to change the due date for the NOCS report. In the final rule,
the NOCS report for all sources, including area sources that become
major sources, is due no later than 150 days after the compliance date.
In addition, the final rule specifies that the compliance date for area
sources that become major sources is 3 years after the area source
becomes a major source.
Comment: Several commenters indicated that references to Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of the pharmaceutical MACT in the proposed rule
inappropriately restrict the use of engineering assessments. The
commenters indicated that the rule should not require sources to
demonstrate that the calculation methods specified in the rule are not
appropriate in order to be allowed to calculate uncontrolled HAP
emissions using an engineering assessment. The commenters also objected
to language in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) that restricts the use of
modified equations to those that the source can demonstrate have been
used to meet other regulatory obligations. The commenters indicated
that they should only be required to show that the selected method for
determining uncontrolled HAP emissions is appropriate, and that it has
no impact on the applicability assessment or compliance determination.
Response: We did not revise the restrictions on the use of the
modified equations as requested because the suggested changes would not
maintain our objective of having a replicable compliance protocol that
is applied consistently across the source category. Therefore, the
final rule, like the proposed rule, restricts the use of engineering
assessments to situations where the equations are not appropriate.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the procedures for
calculating uncontrolled HAP emissions be modified in the final rule so
that it represents ``post condenser'' emissions if the condenser is
recovering HAP for reflux, reuse, or use as a fuel. The commenters
stated that, for many types of emission events, the proposed equations
would require the use of the vessel temperature rather than the
temperature of the receiver that receives condensed liquid. The
commenters indicated that the procedures ignore the emission reduction
realized by the condenser, inflates the uncontrolled emissions, and is
inconsistent with the MACT floor database.
Response: We disagree with the suggested change. Our position is
that uncontrolled emissions should be determined at the point the vent
stream leaves the process and prior to entering any control device. A
condenser that meets the definition of ``process condenser'' is
considered integral to the process, and uncontrolled emissions are
calculated at the outlet of the condenser. Process condensers must
initiate vapor-to-liquid phase change in an emission stream from
equipment that operates above the boiling or bubble point, including
condensers located prior to a vacuum source. All other condensers serve
primarily to reduce or remove air pollutants, with or without some
product recovery benefits; therefore, uncontrolled emissions should be
calculated prior to the condenser. This approach does not inflate
uncontrolled emissions; it characterizes them properly. Furthermore, if
a condenser is determined to be an air pollution control device, the
removal efficiency is included as part of the overall control
efficiency for the process; it does not ignore the emission reduction
realized by the condenser. Finally, we consider the approach to be
consistent with our database because we provided clear instructions
with the ICR regarding how to report emissions from condensers, and we
trust that most respondents followed those instructions.
Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed requirements for
testing control devices that treat emissions from batch process vents
under absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions, as described in
the Pharmaceutical Production MACT (Sec. 63.1257(b)(8)). One of the
commenters was concerned that facilities would be forced to generate
unwanted or off-specification material in order to satisfy the
requirements for worst-case conditions. This commenter requested that
the final rule either defer to the General Provisions at Sec.
63.7(e)(1), which require testing under normal operating conditions, or
replace paragraph Sec. 63.2470(c) in its entirety with a reference to
the performance test requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The
second commenter stated that the worst-case testing provisions are
technically infeasible and unjustified based on existing EPA
regulations. That commenter noted that the Polymers and Resins IV
NESHAP recognized this issue and require sources to test under worst-
case actual production conditions as opposed to hypothetical worst-case
conditions (i.e., Sec. 63.1325(c) of subpart JJJ).
One commenter also suggested that worst-case conditions may not
always occur at the highest pollutant loading. According to the
commenter, the control efficiency of thermal oxidizers generally
increases as the loading increases, and the more challenging compliance
demonstration would, therefore, occur under actual/normal operating
conditions when the pollutant loading is changing several times over
the course of a batch cycle. The commenter requested that the final
rule allow facilities the option of using either the Polymers and
Resins IV NESHAP testing protocols or the Pharmaceutical NESHAP testing
protocols as a site-specific election in the pre-test protocols that
facilities must submit prior to testing.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' suggestion that sources
be allowed to conduct performance tests under ``normal operating
conditions.'' Specifically, we disagree with a commenter's contention
that operators would be forced to generate unwanted or off-
specification material in order to satisfy the requirements of worst-
case conditions. The final rule, like the proposed rule, allows the
source to test under ``hypothetical worst-case conditions'' as an
alternative to testing under absolute worst-case conditions.
Hypothetical worst-case conditions are

[[Page 63874]]

simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest HAP
load of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to the control
device based on an emission profile developed by the owner or operator.
For example, an owner or operator could arrange to boil off a more
volatile compound than those actually used in processes in separate
equipment that can be connected to the ductwork upstream of the control
device (if the emissions profile shows that this would represent worst-
case conditions for the control device) and then test the control
device. In this example, the owner or operator would not have to
manufacture any unplanned products or generate products that do not
meet normal specifications.
Also, when sources test under worst-case conditions, this should
eliminate (or at least reduce) the need for any retesting at a later
date when conditions change. If a source tested under ``normal
operating conditions,'' then any change from these conditions could/
should trigger a need to retest the source under the ``revised'' normal
operating conditions. The concept of worst-case conditions allows
sources to anticipate potential changes so that only one (initial) test
is generally required.
We agree with the commenter's assertion that worst-case conditions
for thermal oxidizers may not occur at the highest pollutant loading.
One extreme is when inlet concentrations are low (less than 1,000
ppmv). For these inlet conditions, the final rule allows compliance
with a 20 ppmv outlet concentration limit instead of requiring 98
percent reduction. For streams with higher concentrations, higher loads
are likely associated with higher flowrates. As the flowrate increases,
residence time in the combustion chamber decreases, which could reduce
performance. Therefore, we require the test at highest load.
Comment: One commenter stated that facilities should be able to use
the results of compliance testing in one reactor configuration done
under another MACT standard for an identical configuration regulated
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, even if the HAP vent to two
separate, yet identical control devices.
Response: The final rule does not allow sources to ``borrow'' test
results from one control device and apply those results to another
``identical'' control device. Factors other than the design of a
control device can affect its performance and, therefore, each control
device must be tested separately.
Comment: One commenter requested that we allow facilities the
option of using EPA Method 320 for any initial compliance option for
batch or continuous streams and allow the use of EPA Method 320 for
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that monitor HF, other
fluorochemicals, and halogenated compounds in addition to those that
monitor HCl.
Response: We agree with the commenter that EPA Method 320, Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR), is an acceptable method to demonstrate
compliance for any type of batch or continuous vent stream. Therefore,
the final rule includes EPA Method 320 as an option for measuring any
of the listed HAP in a vent stream. We note, however, that unless
Method 320 has been validated at a ``similar source,'' the tester must
validate Method 320 for that application by following the procedures in
Section 13 of Method 320. To clarify the requirements for CEMS, Sec.
63.2450(g)(1)(i) of the final rule specifies that a monitoring plan is
required for CEMS other than an FTIR meeting Performance Specification
(PS) 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP, rather than only
HCl.
Comment: Three commenters requested changes and clarification of
the requirements for establishing operating limits. One commenter
requested that the requirements be consistent with those in Sec.
63.1334(b)(3) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ. A second commenter
interpreted the proposed language to mean that an average is calculated
from the values of the three test runs and then an engineering analysis
may be applied to establish an operating limit that accounts for
expected process variation. That commenter also requested a description
of the process to be used and the timeframe under which the
Administrator will conduct the review and approval of operating limits
established in accordance with Sec. 63.2470(e)(3)(i) of the proposed
rule.
A third commenter took issue with the requirement that the
operating parameter(s) be set at the average value measured during the
performance test. The commenter noted that other chemical industry
regulations allow the measured value to be adjusted based on
engineering assessment and claimed that this is critical because
performance tests must be run at representative conditions because of
process variability, production schedules, and ambient conditions,
e.g., a condenser may be tested on a cool day but the outlet
temperature for compliance must reflect the hottest day as well.
Response: The final rule references the procedures in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS, for establishing operating limits, except that for
control devices used for batch process vents, Sec. 63.2460(c)(3)
specifies additional procedures for setting the limits. Although the
provisions differ slightly from what is described by the third
commenter in that the performance test must be conducted at worst-case
conditions, owners or operators can utilize engineering assessments to
develop either a single limit for the entire process or multiple levels
for different emission episodes within the process. These requirements
ensure that the performance test captures challenging conditions that
are not always present because of the variable nature of batch vents.
If no Group 1 batch process vents are vented to the control device,
then operating limits may be set using the results of the performance
test and engineering assessment procedures as specified in subpart SS
and consistent with the procedures described by the commenter. For
batch process vents, we consider it appropriate that the initial
compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, be consistent
with the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
The final rule explicitly states in Sec. 63.2460(c)(3) that
operating limits based on the results of performance tests supplemented
by other information must be reported in the source's precompliance
report and approved by the Administrator. However, operating limits
based on the average of the three test runs do not require preapproval.
The final rule, like the proposed rule, also requires the owner or
operator to submit in the precompliance report the test conditions,
data, calculations, and other information used to establish operating
limits in accordance with Sec. 63.2460(c)(3). The precompliance report
will be approved or disapproved within 90 days after receipt by EPA.
Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed rule did
not address situations where a process has both batch and continuous
unit operations or cases where batch vents and continuous vents are
combined into a common header system. Another commenter suggested that
batch vents manifolded together with continuous process vents should be
treated as continuous process vents. Two of the commenters suggested
that we resolve the issue of combined vent streams by deferring to 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, for regulation of process vents. One commenter
noted that subpart SS contains language at Sec. 63.982(f) that governs
how compliance with manifolded vents is determined and requested that
this concept also be extended to allow for control devices that control
vents subject to more than

[[Page 63875]]

one MACT standard, where completion of a successful compliance
determination for one standard meets the compliance determination
requirements of the other MACT standards where the control device
controls similar HAP. Other commenters suggested that we allow
compliance demonstrations for combined streams similar to the
provisions under the Generic MACT for the Polycarbonate Production
source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), and add a definition of
``combined vent stream'' based on the definition in 40 CFR 63.1101
(subpart YY).
Response: The final rule clarifies requirements for combined
streams in a manner similar to that described in Sec. 63.982(f), but
extends these requirements to deal with batch process vents and
wastewater vent streams. For a combined stream, if any of the
continuous process vent streams within the aggregated stream would be
Group 1 by themselves and the batch streams are not Group 1, then the
provisions of subpart SS may be followed in demonstrating 98 percent
control of the combined aggregate stream. If a combined stream contains
Group 1 batch process vents, then the initial compliance provisions for
batch process vents must be followed in demonstrating 98 percent
control of the combined aggregate stream. Also, the final rule does not
allow an option to raise the TRE above 1.0 using a recovery device.
Subpart SS requires that the performance test be conducted at
maximum representative operating conditions and only over the batch
emission episodes that result in the highest organic HAP emission rate
that is achievable during the 6-month period that begins 3 months
before and ends 3 months after the compliance assessment. In contrast,
the initial compliance provisions for batch process vents provided in
the proposed rule would require that the test be conducted at worst-
case conditions. For industries where products and operations remain
fairly constant, there should be no significant difference between the
``worst-case conditions'' described by the batch process vent initial
compliance provisions and the ``maximum representative'' conditions
required by subpart SS. However, for control devices that might see a
wide variability of products and emission stream characteristics, such
as those in the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry,
the test required by subpart SS may not be representative at a later
date when products have changed. Therefore, compliance with the batch
testing provisions is a more comprehensive requirement, and we are
inclined to retain it under most circumstances. However, in cases where
the combined stream includes Group 2 batch process vents and no Group 1
batch process vents, we agree that owners and operators should be
allowed to follow the compliance demonstration requirements of subpart
SS.
A second issue occurs when combining streams changes the
characteristics of the aggregate stream such that less emission
reduction may occur. Because control requirements are 98 percent under
both the batch provisions and continuous (subpart SS) provisions, this
is not an issue for streams routed to control devices. However, for
recovery devices, there are differences between meeting 95 percent
recovery under the batch process vent provisions and meeting a TRE
index under subpart SS. For example, the overall required emission
reductions could be lessened by combining a number of low-concentration
batch streams, that would not trigger control under the batch
requirements, with a rich continuous stream that would require
significant control or recovery of material by itself, which would
raise the outlet TRE value at the outlet of the recovery device and
allow use of an ineffective recovery device and no further control.
Similarly, emission reductions could be lessened by aggregating rich
batch vents (with uncontrolled emissions of greater than 10,000 lb/yr)
with continuous vents and allowing less than 95 percent control by
meeting the TRE. In either case, the use of a recovery device to raise
the TRE index above 1.0 could result in actual emissions above the
level required had the streams not been aggregated and, therefore, we
are not allowing this option. Thus, all Group 1/Group 2 determinations
for vent streams must be made prior to aggregation and prior to any
recovery device.

K. Ongoing Compliance

Comment: One commenter requested that the monitoring provisions be
modeled after 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for continuous vents, and
that we establish a similar cost-effective level for batch process
vents. Another commenter stated that the requirements for continuous
parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are more fully and correctly
covered in subpart SS and that the periodic verification requirements
of Sec. 63.2470(f) are duplicative of title V, wasteful, and
unnecessary.
Response: We decided to streamline the compliance procedures and
promote consistency among rules by referencing subpart SS in its
entirety for most of the monitoring requirements. For batch process
vents, however, we retained some additional monitoring provisions from
the proposed rule that are based on requirements in subpart GGG (the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP). One of these provisions allows the
owner or operator to set monitoring parameter values (i.e., operating
limits) at levels other than what were obtained from the performance
test.
A second provision consistent with subpart GGG is the ``periodic
verification'' procedure for control devices with inlet HAP emissions
less than 1 tpy (Sec. 63.2460(c)(5) in the final rule). We do not
agree with the suggestion that title V periodic monitoring requirements
are duplicative for control devices with less than 1 tpy HAP load. The
title V periodic monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B)
apply only where an underlying applicable requirement such as NESHAP
require no monitoring of a periodic nature. Thus, the title V periodic
monitoring requirements will not apply where the monitoring
requirements of subpart FFFF do apply.
A third provision based on subpart GGG is the option to establish
averaging periods over either an operating block or an operating day.
This provision may be useful if each batch is not always completed
within an operating day or when an owner or operator elects to set
multiple operating limits for different emission episodes.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed monitoring and
reporting requirements do not meet the enhanced monitoring requirements
as set forth in section 114(a)(3) of the CAA and, therefore, are
``arbitrary and capricious.'' The commenter indicated that some sources
are exempted from ``any truly effective monitoring strategy'' and that
``sources with greatest HAP emissions, which fall outside the MACT
floor due to size, have loosest monitoring requirements.''
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions. The final
rule, like the proposed rule, requires monitoring of all control
devices. To minimize the burden on small operations (e.g., small
control devices controlling batch process vents), the monitoring
requirements differ for lower-emitting sources; however, these sources
are not ``sources with the greatest HAP emissions.'' In addition, Sec.
63.2525(e) of the final rule requires recordkeeping of emission points
that fall outside of the MACT threshold for control to be sure that
these points remain below the threshold.

[[Page 63876]]

Comment: Two commenters took issue with the monitoring requirements
for catalytic oxidizers. The first commenter claimed that testing of
the catalyst activity is unnecessary (as long as the temperature
differential is maintained, the catalyst is effective); is inconsistent
with the requirements under other rules that frequently share the
device; and would force annual outages of the control device for
sampling with significant negative environmental impacts and costs. The
commenter recommended that the monitoring requirements for catalytic
oxidizers be based on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, requirements,
which are based on the HON requirements. The other commenter suggested
that vendor guarantees/warranties for catalytic incinerators be allowed
as an alternative to the annual catalyst test or quarterly temperature
differential check. This commenter noted that some catalyst vendors
will supply a warranty if certain work practices are followed, such as
raising the inlet temperature according to a set schedule. This
commenter's experience indicated that temperature differential set at
maximum load across the bed is not a particularly good indicator of
catalyst activity for a variable process vent stream.
A third commenter expressed support for the monitoring requirements
for catalytic oxidizers in the proposed rule, but requested that we
make it clear that the catalyst activity test is not the only
compliance alternative allowed and define what an annual catalyst test
entails. The commenter further stated that, if a performance test must
be done annually, EPA should consider if the cost of a performance test
(e.g, $15,000) can be justified annually. If verifying the catalyst
activity does not require a performance test, then the commenter stated
EPA should establish guidelines on how to conduct the annual test.
Response: We agree that maintaining a temperature differential
across the bed is evidence that the catalyst is effective, and it is a
valid means of demonstrating ongoing compliance. It also is the
requirement specified in subpart SS and many other rules and by
referencing subpart SS, it is included in the final rule. However, we
also included the catalyst test option from the proposed rule because,
as one commenter points out, it is difficult to maintain the required
differential across the catalyst bed when the organic load into the
catalytic incinerator fluctuates, even though it may actually still be
achieving the same reduction efficiency. This could be a particular
concern when the initial performance test must be conducted under
worst-case conditions, which generally is the maximum load. This option
requires catalyst bed inlet temperature monitoring and an annual
catalyst activity level check. When monitoring only the inlet
temperature, the catalyst activity level check also is needed; unlike
thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizer performance cannot be ensured
simply by monitoring the operating temperature. Catalyst beds can
become poisoned and rendered ineffective without any apparent change in
operation. An activity level check can consist of passing an organic
compound of known concentration through a sample of the catalyst,
measuring the percentage reduction of the compound across the catalyst
sample, and comparing that percentage reduction to the percentage
reduction for a fresh sample of the same type of catalyst. Based on
information from a company that offers such services, the cost is less
than $800.
We do not agree that vendor guarantees based on following specific
work practices are an acceptable alternative for monitoring the
performance of catalytic oxidizers. Our experience is that the
performance of air pollution control devices can degrade over time if
they are not properly maintained, and that most owners and operators
try to follow the vendor's recommended work practices as a preventative
measure. In some cases, the vendor guarantees are only valid during the
first year of operation of the control device. More importantly, basing
compliance solely on vendor guarantees (that are tied to work
practices) would mean that an ``unexpected'' deterioration in the
performance of the catalytic oxidizer would go undetected and
unreported because no direct monitoring of the catalytic oxidizer would
be performed. Therefore, the final rule does not include the suggested
alternative.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the requirement for
continuous pH monitoring for caustic scrubbers is unwarranted and often
impractical. For batch operations, these commenters stated that it
should only be necessary to verify that the scrubber is operating
properly just before and just after each batch. The commenters also
asserted that continuous pH meters are often unreliable in harsh
service conditions and are subject to plugging, corrosion, or
contamination.
Two commenters stated that measurement of pH is not appropriate for
caustic scrubbers because most, if not all, have a pH near 14, which
makes the measurement irrelevant. According to the commenters, the
titration curve is typically so steep that the pH measurement is not
useful in controlling the scrubber. These commenters requested that the
final rule be written to allow the measurement of caustic strength
without the need to request EPA approval; otherwise, numerous
facilities will need to request approval to measure caustic strength
daily in lieu of daily pH monitoring, which would appear to place an
undue burden on facilities and the regulatory organizations that must
review the site-specific plans.
Response: As previously noted, the final rule references the
monitoring requirements in subpart SS. For all halogen scrubbers
(including caustic scrubbers), Sec. 63.994 requires continuous pH
monitoring. We have decided to retain the requirement for continuous
monitoring in the final rule. This approach maintains consistency with
other rules that reference subpart SS. It also addresses the
commenters' concern that the steep titration curve makes pH a poor
parameter for daily monitoring when pH is normally about 14 (i.e., for
systems where the recirculating scrubber solution is replaced on a
batch basis rather than continuously adjusted to maintain relatively
constant conditions). Finally, we have decided to allow continuous
measurement of caustic strength at the scrubber outlet as an
alternative to the continuous monitoring of pH because caustic strength
is directly related to pH.
Comment: Many commenters objected to the requirement to calculate a
daily 365-day rolling summation of emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the 10,000 lb/yr limit for batch process vents. According to these
commenters, sources should be allowed to calculate a 12-month rolling
summation instead of the daily summation because daily calculations
would be burdensome, particularly for facilities manufacturing many
products or products with emissions well below the limit. One of the
commenters also suggested replacing the 365-day rolling summation
calculation with methodology, like in 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ,
whereby the highest-emitting batch recipe for any given product is
determined and the number of batches are recorded to demonstrate that a
process has less than 10,000 lb/yr uncontrolled emissions. Two
commenters also are uncertain how to calculate daily emissions from
batch processes that are carried out over several days. Another
commenter indicated that the existing monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in title V and/or state minor new source review permits
are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the limit.

[[Page 63877]]

Response: In order to demonstrate continuously that uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions from a process have not exceeded 10,000 lb/yr,
the proposed rule would require daily calculations of the emissions in
the preceding 365 days. It appears that the commenters interpreted this
requirement to be much more involved than we intended. We expected
that, as part of the initial compliance demonstration, an owner or
operator would determine the uncontrolled batch process vent emissions
for a standard batch and divide this value into 10,000 to determine the
number of batches that could be run in a 365-day period. One way to
demonstrate continuous compliance would be to track the number of
batches produced each day and show that the running total number of
batches for the preceding 365 days does not exceed the number
calculated during the initial compliance demonstration. The only
potentially complicating twist to this process is that the total has to
be adjusted to account for any difference in emissions when a
nonstandard batch is operated, but we expect such events to be
uncommon.
The final rule retains essentially the same requirement as the
proposed rule because daily summations are needed to demonstrate
continuous compliance, and we do not consider the demonstration to be
unduly burdensome. However, upon consideration of the comments, we have
decided to make three changes in Sec. 63.2525(e) in the final rule to
clarify our intent and perhaps reduce the burden. First, to address the
situation of a batch that is run during more than a single calendar
day, we specify that the record that the batch was run should be
assigned to the day the batch is completed. Second, we agree that
physically calculating the summations does not need to be performed
each day, provided the necessary data are collected in an appropriate
fashion so that each of the daily calculations can be performed at a
later date. The final rule allows the calculations to be performed
monthly. Note that each day that exceeds the limit is still a separate
deviation. Finally, we edited the language to clarify that alternative
records that correlate to the total emissions, such as the number of
batches, may be maintained.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns with the proposed
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for continuous
parameter monitoring and requested that they be removed from the rule.
One commenter indicated that the proposed QA/QC requirements are being
introduced in a piecemeal fashion while they are still evolving, are
technically unworkable, impose substantial burdens for no apparent
benefit, significantly reduce monitor availability, may have
unfavorable environmental impacts, and may create safety concerns. In
addition, the commenter indicated that the proposed design and data
availability requirements overlap with or conflict with existing
language in subpart SS. The commenter noted that we decided not to
promulgate similar QA/QC requirements in subpart SS. The commenter
indicated that the justification for not adopting the requirements in
subpart SS is correct and should be applied for subpart FFFF as well.
Other commenters also noted that EPA's Emissions Measurement Center
staff and industry are working to develop QA/QC procedures for
parametric monitoring, and they recommended relying on requirements in
existing rules until those efforts are finalized. One commenter
considered the proposed QA/QC requirements for pH probes and flow
meters to be particularly impractical and burdensome.
Response: As mentioned previously, the monitoring requirements in
the final rule are based largely on subpart SS and, thus, the sections
of the proposed rule referenced by the commenters (i.e., Sec.
63.2475(c) through (f)) no longer apply. We have deleted these QA/QC
requirements for the same reasons we decided not to implement similar
proposed QA/QC requirements in subpart SS (67 FR 46260, July 12, 2002).
Specifically, we are currently developing performance specifications
for CPMS to be followed by owners and operators of all sources subject
to standards under 40 CF[reg]
part 63, which includes subpart FFFF.
Also, subpart SS currently specifies requirements for CPMS, and the
requirements of subpart SS are referenced by 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF. Even though they may not be as specific as those proposed, we
decided it would be premature to promulgate performance specifications
for subpart FFFF when the performance specifications that would
ultimately be promulgated for all 40 CFR part 63 may be significantly
different.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement in
Sec. 63.2475(g) to install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at
the inlet or outlet of a control device if the flow to that control
device could be intermittent. One commenter recommended that Sec.
63.2475(g) be deleted because the closed-vent system bypass monitoring
provisions of subpart SS already indicate whether a control device is
being bypassed. Similarly, the second commenter questioned the need for
flow indicators and asserted that if the concern is diversion of the
vent to the atmosphere, then this prohibition should be so stated. That
commenter was also concerned that, since essentially all batch process
vents have intermittent flows, the requirement for flow indicators on
vents with intermittent flows translates into the installation of
numerous flow indicators with high QA/QC costs. The commenter noted
that car seals or monthly inspections are allowed in other rules and
requested that the flow indicator requirement be withdrawn, or that we
explain how the expense in maintaining such devices translates into an
environmental benefit. A third commenter also questioned whether the
intent was to detect no flow or to detect when a bypass is occurring.
The commenter contended that detecting no flow for batch processes is
not useful because the flows are intermittent. If the intent is to
detect bypasses to the atmosphere, the commenter requested that the
final rule incorporate text from 40 CFR 63.114(d)(1) and (2) to clarify
the intent.
Two commenters requested that the final rule allow the following
alternatives to the use of flow indicators: indicators of vent gas
flow, such as duct positions or fan operation; and the use of on/off
interlock type devices that are not subject to calibration. One
commenter contended that maintaining records of an interlocked valve
limit-switch position should be sufficient when the valve only opens to
allow flow when pressure is above a specified level.
Response: The commenters are confusing the requirement in Sec.
63.2475(g) of the proposed rule with the requirement in Item 4 of Table
5 of the proposed rule. Table 5 of the proposed rule would require a
flow indicator in a bypass line to indicate any diversion of flow from
the control device. On the other hand, the proposed requirement in
Sec. 63.2475(g) to install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at
the inlet or outlet of a control device if the flow to that control
device could be intermittent is for identifying periods when monitored
parameter readings should not be included in the daily or block
average. This provision was included because periods of no flow are
equivalent to periods of non-operation (i.e., the control device is not
actually reducing emissions during these periods and, therefore, should
not be used to demonstrate ongoing compliance).
Both provisions have been retained in the final rule. The
requirements for

[[Page 63878]]

bypass lines are specified in 40 CFR 63.983(a)(3), which are referenced
from Sec. 63.2450 of the final rule. The requirement to use flow
indicators to identify periods of no flow through control devices is
specified in Sec. 63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule. We also note that
the final rule allows the use of car seals and lock and key
configurations as an alternative to the use of flow indicators in
bypass lines. Furthermore, the definition of ``flow indicator'' in 40
CFR 63.981 does not restrict the type of device that can be used as a
flow indicator in a bypass line. However, we have not allowed seal
mechanism alternatives in Sec. 63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule because
these techniques cannot identify periods of no flow through a control
device.
The definition of ``flow indicator'' in 40 CFR 63.981 is also
inadequate for the purposes of Sec. 63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule
because it includes any device that only indicates whether the valve
position would allow gas flow to be present in the control device.
Therefore, the final rule specifies that for the purposes of Sec.
63.2460(c)(7), ``flow indicator'' means a device which indicates
whether gas flow is present in a line. Also note that the required
number of flow indicators required by Sec. 63.2460(c)(7) is related to
the number of control devices, not the number of batch process vents.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the requirement not to use
periods of ``no-flow'' in data averages is impossible to meet because
most regulated streams have many periods of no flow (i.e., more than 25
percent of the time) and, thus, this requirement would force
noncompliance with the data availability requirement. The commenter
contended that no flow periods are only relevant when flow is the
parameter being monitored (e.g., scrubber flow). The commenter noted
that, where the parameter being monitored is not flow, then as long as
the control device is operating properly (e.g., flare has pilot flame,
combustion device is operating at or above its minimum temperature),
the rule requirements are met, regardless of flow.
Response: We decided to retain the ``no flow'' provision in the
final rule. This provision is consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG. It was added to subpart GGG to ensure that a source would not
incur a ``deviation'' from the operating limits during periods when
there are no HAP emissions being routed to the control device. For the
same reason, it is applicable to the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing source category as well. We also note that periods of no
flow are excluded from the operating hours when calculating the 75
percent data availability requirement and, therefore, excluding these
data will not result in non-compliance with the data availability
requirements.

L. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: Several commenters suggested moving the necessary
recordkeeping elements from the definition of ``operating scenario'' to
a new paragraph in the recordkeeping section (Sec. 63.2525). In
addition, the commenters recommended excluding the following
requirements from both the definition and the new recordkeeping
section: a description of emission episode durations and a listing of
vent-by-vent control levels for every operating scenario. Several
commenters also expressed concern with the provision that a change in
any of the elements of the definition constitutes a new operating
scenario. They considered this provision burdensome because variations
in some of the listed information (e.g., a change in calculation and
engineering analyses) can be construed as requiring separate operating
scenarios even if the variation does not change the applicable
requirements. One commenter stated that the manufacture of a new
product in existing nondedicated equipment should not trigger a new
operating scenario unless the compliance approach is different for the
new product than it is for existing products. Furthermore, the
commenter stated that reconfiguring equipment in a process or across
processes should not in and of itself trigger a new operating scenario,
unless it triggers new applicable requirements.
Response: After considering these suggestions, we decided to move
the recordkeeping elements from the proposed definition to Sec.
63.2525 of the final rule, but we did not change the recordkeeping
elements themselves. We did not exclude the emission episode durations
from the list of recordkeeping elements because this is an essential
element in the calculation of emissions for events such as a purge or a
vacuum operation. Note that if duration is not used in the calculation
for a particular emission event or is not necessary in the compliance
demonstration, there is no need to include it in the operating
scenario. We did not exclude the requirement to specify vent-by-vent
control levels because this information is important when batch process
vents within a process are controlled to different levels. Also,
because continuous process vents are regulated individually, it is
important to identify the actual control level for each vent. If all
vents are controlled to the same level, then a simple statement
indicating the control level is all that is needed for the operating
scenario.
We also clarify in Sec. 63.2525 that records are required of only
those elements that are applicable (i.e., the level of detail required
for some compliance options will be greater than for others). For
example, for compliance with the 20 ppmv outlet concentration standard
when worst-case conditions are defined by the conveyance system
limitations rather than by the process, it is not necessary to provide
emission calculations for vents that are routed to the control device.
Comment: One commenter recommended deleting the requirement to
submit as part of the compliance report each new operating scenario
operated during the reporting period. Several other commenters asked
that we revise the language to specifically require only a listing of
the new operating scenarios in the compliance reports. According to one
commenter, operating scenarios duplicate title V requirements, which is
unnecessary and confusing. Another commenter stated that the
requirement to submit each new operating scenario could result in the
generation of a significant quantity of information, especially for
batch processors who have the potential for hundreds of different
operating scenarios. One commenter stated that the requirement to
submit operating scenarios as part of the compliance report when there
are deviations is unwarranted. According to the commenter, while
listing the scenarios under which a source was operating during
noncompliance events may be necessary, listing all of the scenarios
under which a process unit might be operating is excessive and
unnecessary.
Response: The final rule clarifies requirements for documenting and
reporting operating scenarios. Our position is that submitting
operating scenarios is critical to enforcement of the final rule, as
they provide much of the information required to demonstrate
compliance. Information in operating scenarios also is the cornerstone
of the management of change strategy that was developed to address the
constantly changing processing environment associated with batch
processors. Although this management of change flexibility is optional
at the discretion of the regulatory authority, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF, provides the framework for implementing the strategy. Therefore,
the final rule retains the requirement that complete operating
scenarios must be submitted.

[[Page 63879]]

However, we have written the final rule to clarify that only one
copy of any operating scenario must be submitted. Specifically, we
wrote the final rule to require that the actual operating scenarios for
planned processes, rather than just a list of operating scenarios, must
be submitted in the NOCS report. Any operating scenarios in the future
for new processes must be submitted in the compliance report for the
reporting period in which the operating scenario is first operated. The
notification of process change, which for the final rule is included as
part of the compliance report, must contain revised operating scenarios
for changes to existing processes. We also eliminated the statement in
the provisions for notification of process changes that specifies ``a
process change means the startup of a new process'' because it is
inconsistent with the above mentioned clarifications. Finally, we
deleted the requirement to submit operating scenarios with other
information about deviations in the compliance report because the
operating log, by definition, is a listing of the scheduled operating
scenarios, and a copy of the operating scenarios themselves would
already have been submitted either as part of the NOCS report or in a
previous compliance report.
Comment: According to the proposed definition, one type of
deviation is any instance in which an affected source fails to meet any
term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable
requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, and that is included in
the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit. One commenter recommended deleting this language from the
definition because it appears to extend the definition to requirements
imposed under title V, rather than subpart FFFF. For example, the
commenter suggested that if a permitting authority imposes a throughput
requirement on a storage tank subject to subpart FFFF or a
NO_X limit on a control device used to comply with subpart
FFFF, this language could be read to make any deviation of those limits
reportable and a potential violation under subpart FFFF, as well as
under title V.
Response: We have not deleted the cited language because we
disagree with the commenter's interpretation that it extends deviations
to requirements under title V. Paragraph (2) of the proposed definition
of ``deviation'' is an important clarification. Sources are obligated
under title V and 40 CFR part 70 to report as deviations any failure to
meet ``any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable
requirement in [subpart FFFF]
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit.'' As
such, the paragraph does not add any additional obligations. However,
it does clarify for source owners and operators reviewing subpart FFFF
that this is their obligation for deviation reporting under title V.
Comment: Four commenters recommended using different terms or
significantly changing the definition of deviation. Two commenters
recommended replacing the term ``deviation'' with the term
``excursion'' throughout the rule to avoid confusion that could be
caused because the proposed definition of deviation differs from the
meaning normally ascribed to the term in the title V program. One
commenter suggested using ``excursion'' to apply to situations where
the monitored parameter is outside of the required range, and using the
term ``deviation'' to represent an actual demonstrated excess emissions
event or nonconformance with a published standard in the rule.
Response: We have not changed the terminology. According to the
definition, a deviation includes any instance in which an owner or
operator fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, including but not limited to any emission
limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. An ``excursion,'' as
defined in 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and SS, is a failure to meet an
operating limit. Therefore, excursions are a deviation under subpart
FFFF.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the attempt to extend
deviation reporting to work practices in Sec. 63.2520(d)(5) and (e) of
the proposed rule is unclear, arbitrary, and capricious. The commenter
stated that each work practice standard itself identifies what has to
be reported in the compliance report. According to the commenter,
adding a new, undefined requirement to report ``deviations from the
requirements for work practice standards in Table 19'' just adds
confusion and appears to add a new arbitrary class of deviation that is
not supported in any rulemaking record. In addition, the commenter was
unsure how we expect facilities to measure deviations from some of the
work practices (e.g., fugitive monitoring) listed in Table 19.
Therefore, the commenter recommended that we remove the requirement for
deviation reporting for work practice standards from Sec.
63.2520(d)(5)(i) and (ii), including the list of information items in
Sec. 63.2520(d)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) (operating time, deviations, and
operating logs/scenarios). The commenter also recommended deleting the
phrase ``or work practice standard'' from Sec. 63.2520(e). This
commenter stated that Sec. 63.2520(d)(5)(ii)(B) and (iii)(D) and the
availability of more detailed records are all that are needed to
identify deviations.
Response: A deviation is defined, in part, as ``any instance in
which an affected source fails to meet any requirement or obligation
established by this subpart, including * * * any * * * work practice
standard.'' Specifically, a source must report ``any instance'' where
it has not complied with any work practice standard. For instance,
compliance with the work practice standard for equipment leaks includes
monitoring and inspecting on the applicable schedule, monitoring for
the correct leak definition, repairing leaks within the specified
timeframe, and keeping records, as well as reporting the information
specified in Sec. 63.1018(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or Sec.
63.1039(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We would also find this
information useful in assessing compliance with the work practice
standards. If a source failed to repair a leak within the specified
timeframe, it would be required to report that as a deviation. However,
we have decided that submitting operating logs is unnecessary for
deviations from the work practice standard for equipment leaks.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the time period
when deviations can occur. According to the commenter, it is not
possible to have a deviation until operating limits and continuous
monitoring system (CMS) parameters have been established. The commenter
noted that, as provided in the General Provisions, compliance with
these limits begins with the submission of the NOCS report.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's conclusion. Section
112(i)(3) of the CAA statutorily forbids allowing more than 3 years
from the effective date of the standards to achieve compliance.
Therefore, at any time after the compliance date, a source may be found
out of compliance, even if that is before the NOCS report is due or the
date that performance tests are conducted.
Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting the requirement to
submit operating logs as part of the compliance report when there are
deviations. According to the commenters, this requirement is unclear,
in part because it does not define ``operating logs,'' which could be

[[Page 63880]]

broadly interpreted and will mean different things to different people;
it will not benefit EPA in compliance reviews because operating logs do
not contain information relevant to a noncompliance event, and they may
not reflect the actual cause of the event; and it is burdensome. As an
example of the potential burden, one commenter noted that, for a source
monitoring 50,000 components monthly for 6 months, a deviation from the
equipment leak work practice standard would require a submittal of
4,500 pages of operating logs (based on 300,000 component readings at
66 lines per page).
Response: The operating log, which is a record required by Sec.
63.2525(c) of the final rule, is simply a schedule or list of the
operating scenarios that have been run. We clarified this requirement
in the final rule by stating it is to be ``updated each time a
different operating scenario is put into operation.'' The reporting
requirement in Sec. 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K) of the final rule has also
been written to clarify that the operating log is only required for
days during which deviations occurred. Furthermore, since deviations of
the work practice standard for equipment leaks are unlikely to be
associated with a single operating day, the final rule specifies that
logs do not have to be submitted for such deviations.
Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting the precompliance
report. One of the commenters noted that a precompliance report is not
required by the HON. According to the second commenter, the
precompliance report duplicates the review and approval process of
title V and the content of the NOCS report and greatly reduces
available compliance time. The commenter also argued that the
precompliance report is unworkable because it requires data that can
only be obtained from the performance test and from operating
experience.
Response: We contend that the precompliance report is a valuable
tool for the regulatory agency responsible for making compliance
determinations for the affected source. Its purpose differs
significantly from the compliance plan that is part of the title V
requirements. It provides an enforcement official or inspector with
some initial background information about the process being controlled,
the types of emissions associated with the process, corresponding
control equipment, and the monitoring parameters that have been or will
be correlated to the process conditions.
A precompliance report is not required for all facilities. The main
purpose of the precompliance report is that it is the mechanism by
which an affected source requests approval to use alternative
monitoring parameters, alternative techniques allowed in the final rule
(e.g., pollution prevention), and calculations or other compliance
procedures that differ from those prescribed in the final rule. In
return for this flexibility, it is important that alternative
procedures be approved before the compliance date to ensure that there
is no noncompliance resulting from selection of an unacceptable
approach. Furthermore, many of the alternative techniques in the final
rule are more complicated than standard requirements like those in the
HON. Therefore, we have retained the precompliance report in the final
rule.
Comment: Two commenters claimed that much of the information
required to be submitted in the NOCS report is already required by the
referenced subparts or the General Provisions, and the additional
information that must be submitted under the proposed rule is
excessive.
Response: In general, the final rule references the notification
requirements in the applicable subparts (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts
G, SS, and GGG) and specifies only the necessary exceptions and
additional requirements. However, the overall requirements are the same
as the proposal. We generally disagree with the commenter regarding the
request to delete requirements beyond those in the referenced subparts.
For example, requirements to identify operating scenarios are
applicable to continuous operations. Because the operating scenario
need only be as detailed as necessary to demonstrate compliance with
the final rule, the operating scenario for a continuous operation may
not require as much information as one for batch operations. If, for
example, a continuous operation has only continuous process vents and
storage tanks, no calculation of uncontrolled or controlled emissions
is necessary to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 63.2525(b)(7) of the
final rule; instead, calculations and engineering analyses consist of
TRE calculations for the continuous vents. We note that for every
element of the operating scenario described in Sec. 63.2525(b),
information is required that is necessary to document how the source is
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. However, we have also made
some changes and clarifications to the NOCS requirements. For example,
for operating limits, only the resulting values are to be reported, and
the procedure used to establish them is supporting documentation that
is maintained as a record. For applicability, only the results of
applicability determinations have to be submitted. Supporting
documentation is maintained as a record under Sec. 63.2525(a)(1).
Comment: Several commenters requested the following changes in the
compliance reporting schedule and due dates: (1) Clarify when the first
report is due because the proposed language appears to be internally
inconsistent, (2) change the beginning date of the first reporting
period to the date the notification of compliance status is due rather
than the compliance date, and (3) allow 60 days rather than 30 days to
prepare the report after the end of the reporting period.
Response: The final rule clarifies our intent that the first
reporting period is to span a period between 6 and 12 months. To be
consistent with other rules, we also decided to provide 60 days to
prepare the compliance reports. Although we have decided to make the
notification of compliance status due 150 days after the compliance
date rather than by the compliance date, the reporting period for the
first compliance report is unchanged in the final rule because sources
must be operating monitoring equipment and conducting other ongoing
compliance activities beginning on the compliance date.
Comment: Two commenters were concerned that some of the data that
must be submitted in the precompliance report are CBI and should not be
required. Commenters also are concerned that some of the requested
information for operating scenarios is CBI.
Response: We recognize that certain information needed to complete
the precompliance report and operating scenarios in the NOCS report may
be confidential. Precompliance and NOCS reports are considered to be
submitted to the Administrator under CAA section 114 even if they are
submitted to a State or local agency acting on the Administrator's
behalf (40 CFR 2.301(b)(2)) and, as such, are entitled to protection
under section 114(c) of the CAA or 40 CFR 2.201-2.311, provided they
meet the criteria set forth in the statute and regulations. If you
claim that any portion of these reports is entitled to such protection,
the material that is claimed as confidential must be clearly designated
in the submission.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the notification of process
change requirements in Sec. 63.2515(f) of the proposed rule. One
commenter stated that the requirement to report any process change,
change in operating scenarios, or change in information submitted in
the NOCS report would be impossibly burdensome for complex

[[Page 63881]]

specialty batch processing systems, and it would offer no environmental
benefit. According to the commenter, frequent, even daily, changes are
normal and necessary requirements of such facilities. The commenter
stated that facilities should only be required to report changes that
result in non-conformance with emission limits or control efficiency
requirements, or that cause a process to exceed the 10,000 lb/yr
uncontrolled HAP threshold, thereby triggering compliance requirements
under subpart FFFF.
Other commenters stated that the proposed notification of process
change requirement is too expansive, imposing a reporting burden which
totally duplicates title V change requirements. One of these commenters
stated that there is no need to submit reports for a process change
unless the process change brings about new applicable requirements.
According to the commenter, an example of a situation where there would
be no need to report is the startup of a new process in an existing
MCPU for a new product, or family of products, which emits no HAP; or
requires no new or different controls, work practices, or monitoring;
and brings about no new applicable requirements. Both commenters noted
that any process change that generates a new or modified applicable
requirement may be anticipated by the facility and would be reported
and/or incorporated in the title V permit. Therefore, according to the
two commenters, providing 60-day prior notifications of process changes
(e.g., in separate notices or in the semiannual compliance report)
would be unnecessary, wasteful, and burdensome. Therefore, the
commenters recommended deleting the notification of process change
requirement in Sec. 63.2515(f).
Response: We disagree with the commenters. These records are needed
to document continuous compliance. As stated before, the level of
detail associated with information provided in operating scenarios
depends on the compliance options and strategy chosen. For example, we
provide concepts like standard batches to account for variability that
could be introduced into a process without triggering new applicable
requirements. Standard batches mean a range of operating conditions can
be covered as part of a single operating scenario. Likewise,
demonstrating initial compliance under worst-case conditions means
information in the notification of compliance status should rarely
change. Therefore, we do not agree that the requirements to report
process changes are unnecessarily burdensome.

M. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Comment: Several commenters requested changes to the definition of
``startup.'' Their primary concern is the statement that excludes the
first time equipment is put into operation after a shutdown for
maintenance and at the start of a campaign to produce a product that
has been produced in the past. One commenter stated that actions to
bring a batch campaign online, regardless of whether previous campaigns
of that product have been run in the past, to be completely different
and more complex than the routine activities conducted between batches
within a campaign, and these operations are not always predictable.
Another commenter indicated startups should apply after shutdowns for
maintenance to avoid safety and environmental issues associated with
trying to run controls with air and/or inerts in the system. Finally,
one commenter claimed the exclusions are illegal because we did not
collect information for periods of SSM.
Several commenters also opposed the exclusions from the definition
of ``shutdown'' for the cessation of a batch process at both the end of
a campaign and for routine maintenance. According to one commenter,
shutting down a process unit after a campaign involves completely
different and more complex procedures than those conducted between
batches in a campaign; these operations are not always predictable, and
there is no difference between shutting down between campaigns and a
maintenance shutdown of a continuous process after a production run.
Response: We have considered similar comments on previous
rulemakings involving batch processors. Commenters in the past
suggested that operating practices for controls used with batch
processes are the same as those for controls used with continuous
processes and argued for similar provisions. Our response was to
provide a definition of startup and shutdown that would consider
situations when operators would be unfamiliar with the equipment
operation or it might not be possible to follow standard operating
procedures. However, we thought that a startup after maintenance, after
switching to a product that has been produced in the past, or the
startups between batches during a campaign are all routine, normal
operating conditions that should result in the same standard batch.
Similarly, we considered shutdown at the end of a campaign, between
batches, or for planned, preventative maintenance to be normal
operations and resulting in the same standard batch. Our rationale for
providing separate requirements for continuous processes was that a
startup or shutdown for any reason results in operation under
conditions different from the normal steady-state operation, which is
not the case for batch operations.
We accept the commenters' statement that actions to bring a batch
campaign on-line, regardless of whether previous campaigns of that
product have been run, or after a shutdown for maintenance, could be
completely different and more complex than the routine activities
conducted between batches within a campaign. This could also be the
case, as commenters argue, after cessation of operation for various
reasons. Therefore, we are persuaded that when these operations are
outside of operations covered by a standard batch (or a nonstandard
batch, as described below), that they should be covered by the SSM
provisions.
Related to this issue is our concept of nonstandard batch, which
describes a situation where operations are conducted outside the range
of conditions established by a standard batch or where steps are
repeated or deleted that contribute to emissions from the batch and,
therefore, must be considered in determining compliance. For example,
if QA/QC metrics are not met at a certain step of a process, and a
material must be recrystallized or purified to a greater degree than
originally prescribed by the standard operating procedure, extended
processing steps must be considered. In these instances, owners and
operators are required to calculate emissions from the nonstandard
batch and verify compliance with the standards. These instances would
not be considered part of the SSM provisions because they can be
reasonably anticipated. As a result, we have defined the term
``nonstandard batch'' in the final rule to describe situations that are
not standard batches, but also are not malfunctions.
Comment: One commenter asserted that SSM provisions in proposed
Sec. 63.2490 are unlawful. According to the commenter, allowing
sources to avoid enforcement actions merely by demonstrating that they
were in compliance with their own SSM plans necessarily allows them to
operate in less than continuous compliance even if their deviations
were avoidable. The commenter indicated that the CAA makes it clear
that sources must be in compliance with emissions standards
continuously, except for unavoidable deviations during SSM.

[[Page 63882]]

Response: We recently adopted final amendments to the General
Provisions which address the concerns raised by the commenter (68 FR
32586, May 30, 2003). The final amendments clarify that Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i) establishes a general duty to minimize emissions. During
a period of SSM, that general duty requires an owner or operator to
reduce emissions to the greatest extent consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices. However, ``during an SSM event, the
general duty to minimize emissions does not require an owner or
operator to achieve the levels required by the applicable MACT standard
at other times, or to make further efforts to reduce emissions if such
levels have been successfully achieved.'' As discussed in the preamble
to the final amendments, we disagree with the commenter's legal
position that sources' compliance with SSMP requirements in lieu of
applicable emission standards is permissible only where violations of
emission limitations are ``unavoidable.'' As stated in the preamble to
the final amendments to the General Provisions, ``[w]e believe that we
have discretion to make reasonable distinctions concerning those
particular activities to which the emission limitations in a MACT
standard apply * * * However, we note that the general duty to minimize
emissions is intended to be a legally enforceable duty which applies
when the emission limitations in a MACT standard do not apply, thereby
limiting exceedances of generally applicable emission limitations to
those instances where they cannot be reasonably avoided.'' (68 FR
32590, May 30, 2003). We further explained that the general duty to
minimize emissions requires that owners or operators review their SSMP
on an ongoing basis and make appropriate improvements to ensure that
excess emissions are avoided.
Comment: Several commenters disagreed with a number of the proposed
SSM requirements. They indicated that monitored parameter values during
periods of SSM should not be included in daily averages, and that to do
so distorts the results for periods of normal operation and is
inconsistent with the General Provisions and previous rules. Commenters
also stated that it is not possible to have a deviation from the
emission limit or work practice standard during SSM periods because the
only requirement during such periods is to comply with the SSMP.
Therefore, the commenters stated that the definition of ``deviation''
is inconsistent with the General Provisions and should be changed to
delete the statement that conflicts with this point, and there should
be no requirement to document deviations during SSM periods in the
compliance reports. According to the commenters, records of every SSM
event, as required by the General Provisions, are unnecessary and
wasteful. The commenters recommended replacing this provision, like in
many other rules, with a requirement to keep records only of events
during which excess emissions occur. Finally, commenters recommended
deleting the requirement to submit an immediate SSM report each time
actions taken differ from the SSMP.
Response: We disagree with the comment that the definition of
deviation is inconsistent with the General Provisions. As recently
amended, 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires operation at all times
(including periods of SSM) in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The General
Provisions state that the general duty to minimize emissions during a
period of SSM does not require the owner or operator to achieve
emission levels that would be required by the applicable standard at
other times if this is not consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices, thus allowing for compliance with the SSMP
in the event that the standard cannot otherwise be met. However, we
further clarified in the recent amendments that a source will not be
considered to have satisfied the duty to minimize emissions merely
because it complied with an inadequate SSMP. Furthermore, the General
Provisions do not say there cannot be a deviation during periods of
SSM. They only state (in Sec. 63.7(e)(1)) that emissions in excess of
the level of the relevant standard during periods of SSM shall not be
considered a violation of the relevant standard, unless a determination
of noncompliance is made under Sec. 63.6(e). As discussed in response
to the previous comment, recent final amendments to the General
Provisions changed Sec. 63.6(e) to clarify a source's compliance
obligations during SSM events. As noted previously, the final rule
references most of the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For
calculating daily averages, subpart SS specifies that monitoring data
collected during periods of SSM are to be excluded. However, we
excluded this provision from 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. If data from
SSM events are excluded from the daily (or block) average, then we
would not have sufficient information to assess whether a deviation has
occurred for a day containing a reported SSM event that we subsequently
determine is not properly an SSM event.
Another requirement in subpart SS is that records of SSM events
(i.e., confirmation that actions taken were consistent with the SSMP or
a description of any inconsistent actions) must be maintained only if
excess emissions occur. For the final subpart FFFF, we decided that
this requirement, rather than records of every SSM event as specified
in the General Provisions, provides sufficient information about SSM
events (note that it applies for all SSM periods, not just those
subject to subpart SS), which means determination of excess emissions
is critical. The final rule defines excess emissions as ``emissions
greater than those allowed by the emission limit.'' When a CMS is used
to demonstrate compliance with an operating limit, this means excess
emissions occur when the operating limit is not met. As noted above,
compliance with an operating limit is based on a daily or block
average, not an average over shorter periods such as a period of SSM.
Thus, SSM records are required for each SSM event that occurs when you
have a deviation of the operating limit for the day or block.
We disagree with the commenter's contention that sources should not
be required to report deviations that occur during SSM events.
Reporting of deviations from emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards that occur during SSM events is necessary
because events claimed to be SSM events by the source may not be viewed
as approved SSM events by EPA. Furthermore, Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E)
and (d)(3) of subpart SS already require records of each SSM event
during which excess emissions occur, and as such the additional
requirement to report such records is not unduly burdensome.
We agree that immediate notifications are not necessary. The
industries covered by this source category generally have extensive
upset/SSM reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and state reporting
requirements that should be adequate in supplying timely notification
of events. Further, the final rule requires information regarding
actions inconsistent with the SSMP to be submitted in semiannual
compliance reports. For these reasons, and to maintain consistency with
the HON and the CAR rules, we have overridden the immediate SSM
reporting required by Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iv) and 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of
the General Provisions.

[[Page 63883]]

N. Change Management

Comment: Regarding EPA's solicitation of comments concerning
process change management, one commenter suggested relying on the title
V constructions for process change management whenever possible.
According to the commenter, adding change management provisions to the
rule (beyond requiring facilities that change the underlying potential
to emit assumptions to comply with the construction and/or operating
permit requirements of their permitting authority) could only be
justified when a campaign is introduced that changes the underlying
evaluation of the worst case for a specific production unit. Otherwise,
the commenter argued, any additional change management requirements
would just increase the compliance burden on already overworked
permitting authorities.
The commenter specifically requested that Sec. 63.2515(f) be
modified to exempt from separate reporting any process change that is
managed according to regulations and procedures required by a
permitting authority under an approved title V program. The commenter
requested that facilities that process such a change request through
the title V program or incorporate the change into a title V permit
should only have to designate in that filing how the change impacts the
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, compliance program at the facility.
According to the commenter, this change would significantly decrease
the burden on permitting authorities and facilities by requiring the
permitting authorities to manage the same issue only once.
Regarding the solicitation of comments about change management
being required for facilities complying with the alternate standard,
the commenter stated that, for any facility restricting control device
emissions to a documented 20 ppmv, the activities occurring before the
control device are not able to significantly change the emissions
profile to the environment as long as the maximum air flow through the
control device does not change.
Response: Our intent in requiring operating scenarios, testing
under worst-case conditions, and specification of conditions under
which process changes are reported is to provide a framework for
managing changes that may be frequent because of the nature of batch
specialty chemical processing operations without introducing additional
burden on permitting authorities and facilities. We intend, for
example, that the standard batch and overall operating scenario cover
the anticipated range of conditions of a process; only in cases where a
change is made that would fall outside of the standard batch would a
new standard batch and operating scenario be required. However, we
consider it inappropriate for the final rule to exempt any process
change that is managed according to title V, as one commenter
requested. For all practical purposes, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF,
specifies the information required to determine applicable requirements
for the MACT standards that are incorporated into the title V permits.
Finally, the final rule is consistent with the commenter's proposed
approach to managing change for a process in which a control device is
tested under worst-case conditions using limitations of the capture and
conveyance system. The operating scenario in this case is simple, and
no detailed information on the emission events controlled by the device
are necessary. Likewise, if a process change occurred in the process,
no new operating scenario is required because the existing operating
scenario still applies.
Comment: One commenter made two comments regarding EPA's
solicitation of comments on process change management as it relates to
title V permits. First, noting that the solicitation of comments
specifically referenced the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT, the
commenter stated that the consideration under that rule authorizing
States to allow facilities to introduce new processes into existing
equipment or install stockpiled equipment without reopening title V
permits would apply with equal force to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
The commenter noted that many batch and specialty chemical facilities
frequently introduce new processes into existing equipment or install
stockpiled equipment. According to the commenter, such facilities need
to have the flexibility to respond quickly to the results of their
research and development activities and changes in market conditions in
a cost-effective manner and without opening a lengthy permitting
process. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we provide a
discussion of change management for subpart FFFF that is similar to
that provided in the preamble to the final Pharmaceuticals Production
MACT.
Second, the commenter noted that the Pharmaceuticals Production
MACT encouraged States to allow for flexible permitting of facilities
and avoid permit revisions where reasonably anticipated alternative
operating scenarios can be established in title V permits and supported
with detailed operating logs. The commenter also noted that the
pharmaceuticals change strategy authorized new process equipment to be
brought into service, without permit modification, where it is either
like-kind replacement or existing onsite equipment not in current
service. According to the commenter, the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing source category would involve the same industry contacts
and supporting rationales that we cited in the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we include
similar provisions in subpart FFFF.
Response: As the commenter noted, the preamble to the final
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (63 FR 50309, September 21, 1998)
provided a detailed discussion of change management procedures as
applied to pharmaceuticals production. We have decided not to include a
similar discussion here. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF, may discuss their interest in change management procedures with
EPA or the appropriate permitting authority on an individual basis.

O. Overlapping Requirements

Comment: Several commenters requested that the rule include
language to address potential overlap between 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF, and various 40 CFR part 60 and part 61 rules. Each commenter was
concerned with a different group of rules, but collectively they
include subparts K, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR in part 60 and
subparts V, Y, BB, and FF in part 61. Typically, the commenters
requested language consistent with language in other rules such as the
HON, or language specifying that compliance with subpart FFFF
constitutes compliance with an overlapping rule. For vents in an MCPU
that contain no HAP but are subject to control under 40 CFR part 60,
subparts DDD, III, NNN, and RRR, one commenter requested a provision
that would allow facilities to opt to meet the continuous process vent
requirements of subpart FFFF in lieu of continuing to comply with the
NSPS requirements.
Response: We agree that there is a need to address potential
overlap between subpart FFFF and various part 60 and part 61 rules, and
we have written the final rule accordingly. In general, the language is
consistent with language in previous rules. For example, the final rule
includes language consistent with Sec. 63.110(e)(1) for overlap with
subpart FF of part 61. To address overlap with subpart BB of part

[[Page 63884]]

61, we included language consistent with language in Sec. 63.110(c) of
the HON. We also included language for overlap with subpart DDD of part
60 that is similar to the proposed language for subparts III, NNN, and
RRR. In addition, for an MCPU with process vents that contain no HAP,
but are subject to control requirements under subpart DDD, III, NNN, or
RRR, the final rule also includes the suggestion to allow compliance
with the control requirements in subpart FFFF for Group 1 process
vents. In each case, the total organic compounds (TOC) must be
considered as if they are organic HAP for purposes of compliance with
subpart FFFF. For storage tanks subject to both subpart FFFF and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb, we decided to keep the proposed language and add
another option. The new option in the final rule specifies that if
control is required under subpart Kb and the tank is assigned to an
MCPU, then compliance with the requirements for Group 1 storage tanks
under subpart FFFF constitutes compliance with subpart Kb. Since the
compliance requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, are similar to
the requirements in subpart Kb, we have decided to address overlap with
subpart Y of part 61 by including language in the final rule that is
consistent with the language used to address overlap with subpart Kb.
We have not included language to address overlap with subparts K and Ka
of part 60 because these rules apply to tanks storing petroleum
liquids, which are not included in the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing source category. Finally, the final rule specifies that
compliance with subpart FFFF constitutes compliance with subpart V in
part 61 and subpart VV in part 60; alternatively, if you have an
affected source with equipment subject to subpart V in part 61 or
subpart VV in part 60, you may elect to comply solely with either
subpart FFFF or the other applicable rule.
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed applicability
provisions and definitions do not go far enough to prevent multipurpose
equipment from being subject to more than one MACT standard. Commenters
suggested exempting all operations subject to another part 63 rule;
designating subpart FFFF as the single applicable rule, or allowing
facilities to pick any one of the applicable MACT rules; and using
``primary product'' and process unit group (PUG) concepts for
clarifying applicability.
Response: We recognize that 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, will
affect manufacturers of specialty chemicals and other products whose
multipurpose production processes are subject to other MACT standards,
creating situations where there are overlapping requirements. The
challenge is how to consolidate overlapping requirements and still
maintain the MACT reductions anticipated from each of the various
standards. Many MACT standards that regulate specialty chemicals,
pesticide active ingredients (PAI), SOCMI, and polymers and resins have
specific language relating to overlap. The predominant method of
addressing possible overlap is by designating a primary product and
requiring compliance with the final rule that applies to the primary
product at all times when the flexible process unit is operating. The
presumption is that the equipment should be regulated according to the
standard that effectively applies for a majority of products produced.
After considering the provisions in previous rules, we decided to
include in the final rule a provision that is essentially the same as
in the PAI rule. This provision is based on developing a PUG from a
collection of multipurpose equipment, determining the primary product
for the PUG, and, generally, complying with the rule that applies to
the primary product for all process units within the PUG. If the
primary product is determined to be miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing materials, then you must comply with subpart FFFF for all
process units in the PUG. If the primary product is determined to be
pharmaceutical products or PAI, then you must comply with 40 CFR part
63, subpart GGG or subpart MMM, respectively, for all MCPU in the PUG.
Although we consider it unlikely, it is possible that the primary
product of a PUG, as determined according to the procedures in subpart
FFFF, could be material subject to another MACT rule such as 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJ, even though it was not determined to be the
primary product according to the procedures in subpart JJJ (i.e., the
PUG is a flexible operation unit under subpart JJJ). In this case,
subpart FFFF only requires compliance with subpart FFFF for the MCPU in
the PUG.
The PUG concept also overrides certain applicability provisions in
other overlapping standards. For example, if the primary product of a
PUG that is also a flexible operation unit for the purposes of subpart
JJJ is determined to be an miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
product, then the redetermination procedures for nonaffected units in
subpart JJJ no longer apply. Another example is that subpart GGG no
longer applies to pharmaceutical process units in a PUG for which the
primary product is determined to be miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing material. Similarly, if the primary product of a PUG is
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing material, then any PAI
process units in the PUG that previously were required to comply with
subpart MMM now must comply with subpart FFFF.
A slight difference exists between the PUG language in the PAI rule
and this current PUG language. In the PAI rule, each process unit in
the PUG must have some processing equipment that overlaps with at least
one other PAI process unit in the group. For subpart FFFF, this
restriction has been revised to require only that each process unit
must have processing equipment that overlaps with any other process
unit (of any kind) in the group. This language allows greater
flexibility in setting the boundaries of the PUG and potentially
increases the number of operations considered as part of a PUG,
extending the potential for consolidation of overlapping requirements
and enabling all the operations considered part of a flexible unit
operation in earlier MACT standards to fall into the same PUG. Since
the change also creates the possibility that PUG developed under
subparts MMM and FFFF would not be identical, subpart FFFF specifies
that an owner or operator may use a PUG developed under subpart MMM
rather than developing a PUG under subpart FFFF.
Comment: One commenter stated that the final rule should specify a
date in the future where the MACT standard for a particular equipment
configuration is ``set'' to avoid having to redetermine applicability
as processes and equipment change.
Response: Previous part 63 rules require a prospective review of
the 5 year period from the compliance date to predict the primary
product and, with the exception of the HON, a subsequent periodic
redetermination ranging from every year to every 5 years, or upon
permanent cessation of the primary product production. We recognize
that redetermination is a burden in that it may require changing
control strategies to comply with a different rule if the primary
product changes. To minimize any burden associated with such changes,
the final rule requires a redetermination only if the PUG stops
manufacturing the primary product. As with the initial determination,
the redetermination is based on a 5-year projection of production.
After redetermination, the PUG becomes

[[Page 63885]]

subject to whatever rule applies to the new primary product. In the
absence of earlier declarations that production of the primary product
has ceased, not making the primary product for a period of 5 years will
be considered evidence that manufacturing of the primary product has
ceased.
Comment: Several commenters requested that we make sure there is no
overlap between the OLD MACT and 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Several
commenters also asked for clarification of how to comply when there is
overlap between subparts FFFF and HHHHH.
Response: The preamble to the proposed OLD rule stated our intent
that all of the distribution sources at miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing affected sources would be subject only to subpart FFFF,
not the OLD rule. The proposed OLD rule also states that those emission
sources that are controlled under the provisions of another 40 CFR part
63 NESHAP would not be part of the OLD affected source. Our position on
this issue has not changed, and we expect to use the same language in
the final OLD rule. Thus, subpart FFFF does not need to address overlap
between the OLD rule and subpart FFFF because there will be no overlap.
The final rule handles overlapping requirements between subparts
FFFF and HHHHH the same as described above for overlap between subpart
FFFF and other part 63 rules. In addition, we have made changes to the
definition of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process and
to the affected source that are designed to clarify which equipment is
subject to subpart FFFF and which is subject to subpart HHHHH.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the final rule allow
consolidation of all equipment leak LDAR programs under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF, or any other single program. One of the commenters noted
that many facilities are complying with a number of different programs
that are effectively equivalent in terms of environmental protection,
and consolidation will reduce confusion and eliminate significant
enforcement effort by EPA and States in determining which LDAR program
applies to which portion of a facility.
Response: The final rule allows for considerable consolidation of
LDAR programs and specifies that compliance with subpart FFFF
constitutes compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part
61, subpart V. Furthermore, Sec. 63.2535(d) of the final rule
specifies that an owner or operator with an affected source under
subpart FFFF and equipment subject to either 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG or MMM, may elect to comply with subpart GGG or MMM, respectively,
for all such equipment. The final rule also allows an owner or operator
to elect to comply with the LDAR requirements in 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F (i.e., the CAR).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them. The ICR number is 1969.02.
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 final NESHAP require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but do not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The recordkeeping requirements collect only the specific information
needed to determine compliance.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 71 labor hours
per year at a total annual cost of $3,150 for 251 respondents. These
estimates include one-time submissions of notifications and
precompliance reports, preparation of an SSMP with semiannual reports
for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed,
preparation of semiannual compliance reports, and recordkeeping. Total
annualized capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring
requirements for the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $256,000
per year. Average operation and maintenance costs associated with the
monitoring requirements for the 3-year period are estimated at $92,000
per year.
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 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 in 40 CFR are in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved
by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9
in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the

[[Page 63886]]

approved information collection requirements contained in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impact of the rule on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business ranging from up to 500 employees to up
to 1,000 employees, depending on the NAICS code; (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; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field. The maximum number of employees to be considered a small
business for each NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed
rule (67 FR 16178).
After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Our economic analysis identified as small businesses 27 of the 113
companies owning affected miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
facilities. This constitutes 24 percent of the affected businesses.
Although small businesses represent 24 percent of the companies within
the source category, they are expected to incur 6 percent of the total
industry compliance costs of $75 million. According to EPA's economic
assessment, there is one small firm with compliance costs equal to or
greater than 3 percent of its sales. In addition, there are three small
firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 percent and 3 percent.
An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The analysis shows that of the 49 facilities
owned by affected small firms, one is expected to shut down after the
implementation of the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
NESHAP.
It should be noted that the baseline economic condition of the
facility predicted to close affects the closure estimate provided by
the economic model, i.e., facilities that are already experiencing
adverse economic conditions will be more severely impacted than those
that are not, and that the facility predicted to close appears to have
low profitability levels currently.
Although the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing NESHAP
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to limit the impact of the
rule on small entities. We have worked closely with the American
Chemical Council and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association. These trade organizations, which represent the majority of
facilities covered by subpart FFFF, have represented their members at
stakeholder meetings throughout the standards development process. We
also worked with the small chemical manufacturers to develop a format
for the process vent standard that is reasonable for the production of
chemicals using batch processing in nondedicated equipment and provide
several alternative ways to comply with the standards to allow as much
flexibility as possible. Emissions averaging and the pollution
prevention alternative standards help those small entities that have
been proactive in reducing their HAP emissions and usage, respectively.
Another alternative standard requires the outlet concentration of the
control device to be less than 20 ppmv. Under this alternative,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are greatly reduced. In
addition, we have included in the preamble guidance for 40 CFR part 70
requirements to minimize title V permit modifications for owners and
operators that make frequent changes to their processes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual costs of the
final rule for any year is estimated to be about $75 million. Thus, the
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
In addition, the NESHAP contain no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (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.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. 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

[[Page 63887]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. None of the sources are owned or operated by
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires 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.'' The final 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. No tribal governments
own or operate miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process
units. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 1985, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives 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. The final rule is not
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology
performance and not health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Approximately 51 million kwh/yr of electricity will be needed to
operate refrigeration units, fans, and pumps for control systems.
Approximately 680 million lb/yr of steam will be needed to operate
steam-assist flares and steam strippers. Approximately 4.3 billion
standard cubic feet per year (scf/yr) of natural gas will be needed to
operate thermal oxidizers and flares, and about 1.0 billion scf/yr will
be needed to generate steam. Generating the electricity will consume
about 17,700 tpy of coal.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus 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 final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 15, 18, 25,
25A, 305, 316, 320, 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, and 8270.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. The
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket
for the NESHAP (Docket OAR-2003-0121). The search for emissions
monitoring procedures for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates
subject to emission limitations in these NESHAP identified 19 voluntary
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available
standards, EPA determined that 13 of the candidate consensus standards
would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and
validation data. The 13 standards are: ASME C00031 or Performance Test
Code 19-10-1981, ASTM D3154-91 (1995), ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90
(1998), ASTM D5835-95, ASTM D6060-96, ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996),
CAN/CSA Z2232.2-M-86, European Norm (EN) 12619 (1999), EN 1911-1,2,3
(1998), ISO 9096:1992, ISO 10396:1993, and ISO 10780:1994. Of the six
remaining candidate consensus standards, the following five are under
development or under EPA review: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ASME/BSR MFC 13m,
ASTM D5790-95 (1995), ISO/DIS 12039, and ISO/FDIS 14965. The EPA plans
to follow, review, and consider adopting these candidate consensus
standards after their development and further review by EPA is
completed.
One consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases
described below for inclusion in these NESHAP in addition to the
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A for measurement of organic HAP or total organic compounds. Therefore,
the standard ASTM D6420-99 is cited in the final rule.
Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 (Docket OAR-2003-0121) is a suitable
alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound(s) are those
listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99; and the target concentration is
between 150 ppb(v) and 100 ppm(v).
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target

[[Page 63888]]

compound(s) not listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and not
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not
apply.
As a result, EPA cites ASTM D6420-99 in subpart FFFF of part 63.
The EPA also cites Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) option in
addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use of GC
configurations other than GC/MS.
Some EPA testing methods and performance standards are specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.2450(g) and 63.2485(h) of subpart FFFF. Subpart FFFF also
references EPA testing methods specified in 40 CFR part 63, subparts G
and SS. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for
more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(f), the final rule
also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use
an alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods or
performance standards listed in the NESHAP.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5.U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

? For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is 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 a new subpart FFFF to read as follows:

Subpart FFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.2430 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.2440 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

Compliance Dates

63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.2455 What requirements must I meet for continuous process vents?
63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?
63.2465 What requirements must I meet for process vents that emit
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or PM HAP?
63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?
63.2475 What requirements must I meet for transfer racks?
63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?
63.2485 What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?
63.2490 What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?

Alternative Means of Compliance

63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?
63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?
63.2505 How do I comply with the alternative standard?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2525 What records must I keep?

Other Requirements and Information

63.2535 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
63.2540 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.2545 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Continuous Process Vents
Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Batch Process Vents
Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits for Hydrogen
Halide and Halogen HAP Emissions or PM HAP Emissions from Process
Vents
Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage
Tanks
Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Transfer Racks
Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Wastewater
Streams and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Table 9 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange
Systems
Table 11 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.2430 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing. This subpart also establishes requirements to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits,
operating limits, and work practice standards.

Sec. 63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

(a) You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own
or operate miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units
(MCPU) that are located at, or are part of, a major source of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) emissions as defined in section 112(a) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
(b) An MCPU includes equipment necessary to operate a miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing process, as defined in Sec. 63.2550,
that satisfies all of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section. An MCPU also includes any assigned storage
tanks and product transfer racks; equipment in open systems that is
used to convey or store water having the same concentration and flow
characteristics as wastewater; and components such as pumps,
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems that are used to manufacture any material or
family of materials described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section.

[[Page 63889]]

(1) The MCPU produces material or family of materials that is
described in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this
section.
(i) An organic chemical or chemicals classified using the 1987
version of SIC code 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except
as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(ii) An organic chemical or chemicals classified using the 1997
version of NAICS code 325, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section.
(iii) Quaternary ammonium compounds and ammonium sulfate produced
with caprolactam.
(iv) Hydrazine.
(v) Organic solvents classified in any of the SIC or NAICS codes
listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section that are
recovered using nondedicated solvent recovery operations.
(2) The MCPU processes, uses, or produces any of the organic HAP
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP,
as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
(3) The MCPU is not an affected source or part of an affected
source under another subpart of this part 63, except for process vents
from batch operations within a chemical manufacturing process unit
(CMPU), as identified in Sec. 63.100(j)(4). For this situation, the
MCPU is the same as the CMPU as defined in Sec. 63.100, and you are
subject only to the requirements for batch process vents in this
subpart.
(c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the CAA.
(2) The manufacture of ammonium sulfate as a by-product, if the
slurry entering the by-product manufacturing process contains 50 parts
per million by weight (ppmw) HAP or less or 10 ppmw benzene or less.
You must retain information, data, and analysis to document the HAP
concentration in the entering slurry in order to claim this exemption.
(3) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web
Coating), future MMMM (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products), and SSSS (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Coil)
of this part 63. Affiliated operations include, but are not limited to,
mixing or dissolving of coating ingredients; coating mixing for
viscosity adjustment, color tint or additive blending, or pH
adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and coating line parts; handling
and storage of coatings and solvent; and conveyance and treatment of
wastewater.
(4) Fabricating operations such as spinning a polymer into its end
use.
(5) Production activities described using the 1997 version of NAICS
codes 325131, 325181, 325188 (except the requirements do apply to
hydrazine), 325314, 325991 (except the requirements do apply to
reformulating plastics resins from recycled plastics products), and
325992 (except the requirements do apply to photographic chemicals).
(6) Tall oil recovery systems.
(d) If the predominant use of a transfer rack loading arm or
storage tank (including storage tanks in series) is associated with a
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, and the loading
arm or storage tank is not part of an affected source under a subpart
of this part 63, then you must assign the loading arm or storage tank
to the MCPU for that miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
process. If the predominant use cannot be determined, then you may
assign the loading arm or storage tank to any MCPU that shares it and
is subject to this subpart. If the use varies from year to year, then
you must base the determination on the utilization that occurred during
the year preceding November 10, 2003 or, if the loading arm or storage
tank was not in operation during that year, you must base the use on
the expected use for the first 5-year period after startup. You must
include the determination in the notification of compliance status
report specified in Sec. 63.2520(d). You must redetermine the primary
use at least once every 5 years, or any time you implement emissions
averaging or pollution prevention after the compliance date.
(e) For nondedicated equipment used to create at least one MCPU,
you may elect to develop process unit groups (PUG), determine the
primary product of each PUG, and comply with the requirements of the
subpart in 40 CFR part 63 that applies to that primary product as
specified in Sec. 63.2535(l).

Sec. 63.2440 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing affected source.
(b) The miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing affected
source is the facilitywide collection of MCPU and heat exchange
systems, wastewater, and waste management units that are associated
with manufacturing materials described in Sec. 63.2435(b)(1).
(c) A new affected source is described by either paragraph (c)(1)
or (2) of this section.
(1) Each affected source defined in paragraph (b) of this section
for which you commenced construction or reconstruction after April 4,
2002, and you meet the applicability criteria at the time you commenced
construction or reconstruction.
(2) Each dedicated MCPU that has the potential to emit 10 tons per
year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP, and you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the MCPU after April 4, 2002. For the
purposes of this paragraph, an MCPU is an affected source in the
definition of the term ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.
(d) An MCPU that is also a CMPU under Sec. 63.100 is reconstructed
for the purposes of this subpart if, and only if, the CMPU meets the
requirements for reconstruction in Sec. 63.100(l)(2).

Compliance Dates

Sec. 63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this
subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) If you startup your new affected source before November 10,
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in
this subpart no later than November 10, 2003.
(2) If you startup your new affected source after November 10,
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in
this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than November 10, 2006.
(c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.2515
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.2515 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart.

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work
practice standards in Tables 1 through 7 to this

[[Page 63890]]

subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM), and you must meet the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through 63.2490 (or the alternative means of
compliance in Sec. 63.2495, Sec. 63.2500, or Sec. 63.2505), except
as specified in paragraphs (b) through (s) of this section. You must
meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2515, 63.2520, and 63.2525.
(b) Determine halogenated vent streams. You must determine if an
emission stream is a halogenated vent stream, as defined in Sec.
63.2550, by calculating the mass emission rate of halogen atoms in
accordance with Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v). Alternatively, you may elect to
designate the emission stream as halogenated.
(c) Requirements for combined emission streams. When organic HAP
emissions from different emission types (e.g., continuous process
vents, batch process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and
waste management units) are combined, you must comply with the
requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart for
each kind of organic HAP emissions in the stream (e.g., the
requirements of Table 1 to this subpart for continuous process vents
and the requirements of Table 4 to this subpart for emissions from
storage tanks).
(2) Determine the applicable requirements based on the hierarchy
presented in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. For a
combined stream, the applicable requirements are specified in the
highest-listed paragraph in the hierarchy that applies to any of the
individual streams that make up the combined stream. For example, if a
combined stream consists of emissions from Group 1 batch process vents
and any other type of emission stream, then you must comply with the
requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for the combined
stream; compliance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section constitutes compliance for the other emission streams in the
combined stream. Two exceptions are that you must comply with the
requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2465 for all
process vents with hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions, and
recordkeeping requirements for Group 2 applicability or compliance are
still required (e.g., the requirement in Sec. 63.2525(f) to track the
number of batches produced and calculate rolling annual emissions for
processes with Group 2 batch process vents).
(i) The requirements of Table 2 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2460
for Group 1 batch process vents, including applicable monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
(ii) The requirements of Table 1 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2455
for continuous process vents that are routed to a control device, as
defined in Sec. 63.981, including applicable monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
(iii) The requirements of Table 5 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2475
for transfer operations, including applicable monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
(iv) The requirements of Table 7 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2485
for emissions from waste management units that are used to manage and
treat Group 1 wastewater streams and residuals from Group 1 wastewater
streams, including applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
(v) The requirements of Table 4 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2470
for control of emissions from storage tanks, including applicable
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
(vi) The requirements of Table 1 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2455
for continuous process vents after a recovery device including
applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
(d) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices (except a flare) or recovery devices,
you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(c) and the requirements
referenced therein.
(e) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a
flare, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(b) and the
requirements referenced therein.
(f) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP emissions from halogenated vent streams, you must meet
the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the requirements referenced
therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a combustion
device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate prior to the
combustion device according to the procedures in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v).
(g) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section apply instead of or in
addition to the requirements specified in subpart SS of this part 63.
(1) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B
in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(2) Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(3) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains carbon disulfide, you must conduct emissions testing according
to paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If you elect to comply with the percent reduction emission
limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, and carbon disulfide is
the principal organic HAP component (i.e., greater than 50 percent of
the HAP in the stream by volume), then you must use Method 18, or
Method 15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to measure carbon disulfide at
the inlet and outlet of the control device. Use the percent reduction
in carbon disulfide as a surrogate for the percent reduction in total
organic HAP emissions.
(ii) If you elect to comply with the outlet total organic compound
(TOC) concentration emission limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this
subpart, and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains greater than 10 percent (volume concentration) carbon
disulfide, you must use Method 18 or Method 15 to separately determine
the carbon disulfide concentration. Calculate the total HAP or TOC
emissions by totaling the carbon disulfide emissions measured using
Method 18 or 15 and the other HAP emissions measured using Method 18 or
25A.
(4) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method
26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, you
may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. When using Method
320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of
Method 320, unless you demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure
has been conducted at a similar source.
(5) Section 63.997(c)(1) does not apply. For the purposes of this
subpart, results of all initial compliance demonstrations must be
included in the notification of compliance status report, which is due
150 days after the compliance date, as specified in Sec.
63.2520(d)(1).
(h) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a
small control device, you may elect to conduct a design evaluation as
specified in Sec. 63.1257(a)(1) instead of a performance test as
specified in subpart SS of this part 63. You must establish the
value(s)

[[Page 63891]]

and basis for the operating limits as part of the design evaluation.
(i) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. In
Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C), the correction to 3 percent oxygen for
emission streams at the outlet of combustion devices is required if you
add supplemental gases, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, to the vent stream
or manifold.
(j) Continuous emissions monitoring systems. Each continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be installed, operated, and
maintained according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and paragraphs
(j)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, and according to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, except as
specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. For any CEMS meeting
Performance Specification 8, you must also comply with appendix F,
procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60.
(i) If you wish to use a CEMS other than an Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) You must determine the calibration gases and reporting units
for TOC CEMS in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of
this section.
(i) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15
requirements, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using
either process knowledge of the control device inlet stream or the
screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream.
(ii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the
predominant organic HAP and report the results as carbon (C 1 ), and
use Method 25A or any approved alternative as the reference method for
the relative accuracy tests.
(iii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as
C₁. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-99, or any approved
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests,
and report the results as C₁.
(3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to the
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
except that the schedule in Sec. 63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and the
results of the performance evaluation must be included in the
notification of compliance status report.
(4) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data consistent with the data
availability requirements specified in Sec. 63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through
(D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid
hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the
15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance,
or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a
period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations within a
process. Operating block averages may be used only for batch process
vent data.
(5) If you add supplemental gases, you must correct the measured
concentrations in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and
Sec. 63.2460(c)(6).
(k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (4) of this section apply in addition to the
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in
subpart SS of this part 63.
(1) You must record the results of each calibration check and all
maintenance performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(2) When subpart SS of this part 63 uses the term ``a range'' or
``operating range'' of a monitored parameter, it means an ``operating
limit'' for a monitored parameter for the purposes of this subpart.
(3) As an alternative to measuring pH as specified in Sec.
63.994(c)(1)(i), you may elect to continuously monitor the caustic
strength of the scrubber effluent.
(4) As an alternative to the inlet and outlet temperature
monitoring requirements for catalytic incinerators as specified in
Sec. 63.988(c)(2), you may elect to comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Monitor the inlet temperature as specified in subpart SS of
this part 63.
(ii) Check the activity level of the catalyst at least every 12
months and take any necessary corrective action, such as replacing the
catalyst to ensure that the catalyst is performing as designed.
(iii) Maintain records of the annual checks of catalyst activity
levels and the subsequent corrective actions.
(l) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sections 63.152(f)(7)(ii)
through (iv) and 63.998(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(6)(i)(A), which apply to the
exclusion of monitoring data collected during periods of SSM from daily
averages, do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(m) Reporting. (1) When Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through 63.2490
reference other subparts in this part 63 that use the term ``periodic
report,'' it means ``compliance report'' for the purposes of this
subpart. The compliance report must include the information specified
in Sec. 63.2520(e), as well as the information specified in referenced
subparts.
(2) When there are conflicts between this subpart and referenced
subparts for the due dates of reports required by this subpart, reports
must be submitted according to the due dates presented in this subpart.
(3) Excused excursions, as defined in subparts G and SS of this
part 63, are not allowed.
(n) The option in Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C) to demonstrate
compliance with a percent reduction emission limit by measuring TOC is
not allowed.
(o) You may not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions.
(p) Opening a safety device, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, is
allowed at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
(q) If an emission stream contains energetics or organic peroxides
that, for safety reasons, cannot meet an applicable emission limit
specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, then you must submit
documentation in your precompliance report explaining why an undue
safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls were
installed, and you must describe the procedures that you will implement
to minimize HAP emissions from these vent streams.
(r) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers. For each surge
control vessel or bottoms receiver that meets the capacity and vapor
pressure thresholds for a Group 1 storage tank, you must meet emission
limits and work practice standards specified in Table 4 to this
subpart.

[[Page 63892]]

(s) For the purposes of determining Group status for continuous
process vents, batch process vents, and storage tanks in Sec. Sec.
63.2455, 63.2460, and 63.2470, hydrazine is to be considered an organic
HAP.

Sec. 63.2455 What requirements must I meet for continuous process
vents?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to your continuous process vents, and you must meet each
applicable requirement specified in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this
section.
(b) For each continuous process vent, you must either designate the
vent as a Group 1 continuous process vent or determine the total
resource effectiveness (TRE) index value as specified in Sec.
63.115(d), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) You are not required to determine the Group status or the TRE
index value for any continuous process vent that is combined with Group
1 batch process vents before a control device or recovery device
because the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(c)(2)(i) apply to the
combined stream.
(2) When a TRE index value of 4.0 is referred to in Sec.
63.115(d), TRE index values of 5.0 for existing affected sources and
8.0 for new and reconstructed affected sources apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(3) When Sec. 63.115(d) refers to ``emission reductions specified
in Sec. 63.113(a),'' the reductions specified in Table 1 to this
subpart apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) If you use a recovery device to maintain the TRE above a
specified threshold, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(e)
and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in Sec.
63.2450 and paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) When Sec. 63.993 uses the phrase ``the TRE index value is
between the level specified in a referencing subpart and 4.0,'' the
phrase ``the TRE index value is £1.9 but <=5.0'' applies for
an existing affected source, and the phrase ``the TRE index value is
£5.0 but <=8.0'' applies for a new and reconstructed affected
source, for the purposes of this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]

Sec. 63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you, and you must meet each applicable requirement
specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Group status. If a process has batch process vents, as defined
in Sec. 63.2550, you must determine the group status of the batch
process vents by determining and summing the uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from each of the batch process vents within the process using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), except as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel to a
temperature lower than the boiling point, you must use the procedures
in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization, you must use the
procedures in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems for the purposes of
this subpart, the receiving vessel is part of the vacuum system, and
terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined
as follows:

P _system = absolute pressure of receiving vessel;
P _i = partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver
temperature;
P _j = partial pressure of condensable (including HAP) at the
receiver temperature;
MW _i = molecular weight of the individual HAP in the
emission stream, with HAP partial pressures calculated at the
temperature of the receiver.

(4) You may elect to designate the batch process vents within a
process as Group 1 and not calculate uncontrolled emissions under
either of the situations described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of
this section.
(i) If you comply with the alternative standard specified in Sec.
63.2505.
(ii) If all Group 1 batch process vents within a process are
controlled; you conduct the performance test under hypothetical worst
case conditions, as defined in Sec. 63.1257(b)(8)(i)(B); and the
emission profile is based on capture and control system limitations as
specified in Sec. 63.1257(b)(8)(ii)(C).
(c) Exceptions to the requirements in subpart SS of this part 63
are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Process condensers. Process condensers, as defined in Sec.
63.1251, are not considered to be control devices for batch process
vents.
(2) Initial compliance. (i) To demonstrate initial compliance with
a percent reduction emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart, you must
compare the sums of the controlled and uncontrolled emissions for the
applicable Group 1 batch process vents within the process and show that
the specified reduction is met.
(ii) When you conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a
control device used to control emissions from batch process vents, you
must establish emission profiles and conduct the test under worst-case
conditions according to Sec. 63.1257(b)(8) instead of under normal
operating conditions as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1). The requirements
in Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply for performance
tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits for
batch process vents. References in Sec. 63.997(b)(1) to ``methods
specified in Sec. 63.997(e)'' include the methods specified in Sec.
63.1257(b)(8).
(iii) As an alternative to conducting a performance test or design
evaluation for a condenser, you may determine controlled emissions
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B).
(iv) When Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B)(7) specifies that condenser-
controlled emissions from an air dryer must be calculated using
Equation 11 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, with ``V equal to the air
flow rate,'' it means ``V equal to the dryer outlet gas flow rate,''
for the purposes of this subpart. Alternatively, you may use Equation
12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, with V equal to the dryer inlet air
flow rate. Account for time as appropriate in either equation.
(v) You must demonstrate that each process condenser is properly
operated according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B). The reference in Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) to the alternative standard in Sec. 63.1254(c)
means Sec. 63.2505 for the purposes of this subpart. As an alternative
to measuring the exhaust gas temperature, as required by Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B), you may elect to measure the liquid temperature
in the receiver.
(vi) You must conduct a subsequent performance test or compliance
demonstration equivalent to an initial compliance demonstration within
180 days of a change in the worst-case conditions.
(3) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance
demonstration, except you may elect to establish operating limit(s) for
conditions other than those under which a performance test was
conducted as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section and, if
applicable, paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The operating limits may be based on the results of the
performance test and supplementary information such as engineering
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations. These

[[Page 63893]]

limits may be established for conditions as unique as individual
emission episodes for a batch process. You must provide rationale in
the precompliance report for the specific level for each operating
limit, including any data and calculations used to develop the limit
and a description of why the limit indicates proper operation of the
control device. The procedures provided in this paragraph (c)(3)(i)
have not been approved by the Administrator and determination of the
operating limit using these procedures is subject to review and
approval by the Administrator.
(ii) If you elect to establish separate monitoring levels for
different emission episodes within a batch process, you must maintain
records in your daily schedule or log of processes indicating each
point at which you change from one operating limit to another, even if
the duration of the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15
minutes. You must maintain a daily schedule or log of processes
according to Sec. 63.2525(c).
(4) Averaging periods. As an alternative to the requirement for
daily averages in Sec. 63.998(b)(3), you may determine averages for
operating blocks. An operating block is a period of time that is equal
to the time from the beginning to end of batch process operations
within a process.
(5) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet
HAP emissions less than 1 tpy, you must establish an operating limit(s)
for a parameter(s) that you will measure and record at least once per
averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to verify that the control
device is operating properly. You may elect to measure the same
parameter(s) that is required for control devices that control inlet
HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter will not
be measured continuously, you must request approval of your proposed
procedure in the precompliance report. You must identify the operating
limit(s) and the measurement frequency, and you must provide rationale
to support how these measurements demonstrate the control device is
operating properly.
(6) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. If you
use a control device other than a combustion device to comply with a
TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP outlet
concentration emission limit for batch process vents, you must correct
the actual concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 1 of
this section; you may use process knowledge and representative
operating data to determine the fraction of the total flow due to
supplemental gas.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR10NO03.000

Where:

C_a = corrected outlet TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP concentration, dry basis, ppmv;
C_m = actual TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP concentration measured at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv;
Q_a = total volumetric flowrate of all gas streams vented to
the control device, except supplemental gases;
Q_s = total volumetric flowrate of supplemental gases.

(7) If flow to a control device could be intermittent, you must
install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or outlet
of the control device to identify periods of no flow. Periods of no
flow may not be used in daily or block averages, and it may not be used
in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement.

Sec. 63.2465 What requirements must I meet for process vents that
emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or PM HAP?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 3 to this subpart
that applies to you, and you must meet each applicable requirement in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) If any process vents within a process emit hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP, you must determine and sum the uncontrolled hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP emissions from each of the process vents within
the process using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)
and (ii).
(c) If collective uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions from the process vents within a process are greater than or
equal to 1,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you must comply with Sec.
63.994 and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) When Sec. 63.994(b)(1) requires a performance test, you may
elect to conduct a design evaluation in accordance with Sec.
63.1257(a)(1).
(2) When Sec. 63.994(b)(1) refers to ``a combustion device
followed by a halogen scrubber or other halogen reduction device,'' it
means any combination of control devices used to meet the emission
limits specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Section 63.994(b)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this
section.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter (PM) HAP
emission limit for new sources in Table 3 to this subpart, you must
comply with paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Use Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
concentration of PM HAP at the inlet and outlet of a control device.
(2) Comply with the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.
63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter used to control PM HAP
emissions.

Sec. 63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 4 to this subpart
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions to a
fuel gas system or process, you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.982(d) and the requirements referenced therein.
(c) Exceptions to subparts SS and WW of this part 63.
(1) If you conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a
control device used to control emissions only from storage tanks, you
must establish operating limits, conduct monitoring, and keep records
using the same procedures as required in subpart SS of this part 63 for
control devices used to reduce emissions from process vents instead of
the procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.985(c), 63.998(d)(2)(i), and
63.999(b)(2).
(2) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in subparts SS and WW
of this part 63, the term ``storage tank,'' as defined in Sec. 63.2550
applies for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) Planned routine maintenance. The emission limits in Table 4 to
this subpart for control devices used to control emissions from storage
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance.
Periods of planned routine maintenance of each control device, during
which the control device does not meet the emission limit specified in
Table 4 to this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year (hr/yr).
You may submit an application to the Administrator requesting an
extension of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The application
must explain why the extension is needed, it must indicate that no
material will be added to the storage tank between the time the 240-hr
limit is exceeded and the control device is again operational, and it
must be submitted at least 60 days before the 240-hr limit will be
exceeded.
(e) Vapor balancing alternative. As an alternative to the emission
limits specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you may elect to implement
vapor balancing in accordance with Sec. 63.1253(f), except

[[Page 63894]]

as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) When Sec. 63.1253(f)(6)(i) refers to a 90 percent reduction,
95 percent applies for the purposes of this subpart.
(2) To comply with Sec. 63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of
an offsite cleaning and reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.
63.2445 through 63.2550 instead of complying with Sec.
63.1253(f)(7)(ii).
(3) You may elect to set a pressure relief device to a value less
than the 2.5 pounds per square inch gage pressure (psig) required in
Sec. 63.1253(f)(5) if you provide rationale in your notification of
compliance status report explaining why the alternative value is
sufficient to prevent breathing losses at all times.

Sec. 63.2475 What requirements must I meet for transfer racks?

(a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer
racks, and you must meet each applicable requirement in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section.
(b) When the term ``high throughput transfer rack'' is used in
subpart SS of this part 63, the term ``Group 1 transfer rack,'' as
defined in Sec. 63.2550, applies for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions to a
fuel gas system or process, you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.982(d) and the requirements referenced therein.

Sec. 63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?

(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section.
(b) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec. 63.1036(b) may
be applied to all processes, not just batch processes.
(c) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in
accordance with Sec. 63.1036(b) is not required after reconfiguration
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only
disturbed equipment.

Sec. 63.2485 What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?

(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to your wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems
within an MCPU, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (l) of
this section.
(b) Wastewater HAP. Where Sec. 63.105 and Sec. Sec. 63.132
through 63.148 refer to compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part
63, the compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(c) Group 1 wastewater. Section 63.132(c)(1) (i) and (ii) do not
apply. For the purposes of this subpart, a process wastewater stream is
Group 1 for compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart if any of the
conditions specified in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this section
are met.
(1) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8
to this subpart is greater than 50 ppmw, and the combined total annual
average concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is
greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate.
(2) The total annual average concentration of compounds Table 8 to
this subpart is greater 50 ppmw, the combined total annual average
concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is greater
than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual average flowrate is greater
than or equal to 1 l/min.
(3) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8
to this subpart is less than or equal to 50 ppmw, the total annual
average concentration of compounds in Table 9 to this subpart is
greater than or equal to 30,000 ppmw at an existing source or greater
than or equal to 4,500 ppmw at a new source, and the total annual load
of compounds in Table 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to 1
tpy.
(d) Wastewater tank requirements. (1) When Sec. Sec. 63.133 and
63.147 reference floating roof requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.119 and
63.120, the corresponding requirements in subpart WW of this part 63
may be applied for the purposes of this subpart.
(2) When Sec. 63.133 refers to Table 9 of subpart G of this part
63, the maximum true vapor pressure in the table shall be limited to
the HAP listed in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart.
(3) For the purposes of this subpart, the requirements of Sec.
63.133(a)(2) are satisfied by operating and maintaining a fixed roof if
you demonstrate that the total soluble and partially soluble HAP
emissions from the wastewater tank are no more than 5 percent higher
than the emissions would be if the contents of the wastewater tank were
not heated, treated by an exothermic reaction, or sparged.
(4) The emission limits specified in Sec. Sec. 63.133(b)(2) and
63.139 for control devices used to control emissions from wastewater
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance of the
control device(s) of no more than 240 hr/yr. You may request an
extension to a total of 360 hr/yr in accordance with the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.2470(d).
(e) Individual drain systems. The provisions of Sec. 63.136(e)(3)
apply except as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(1) A sewer line connected to drains that are in compliance with
Sec. 63.136(e)(1) may be vented to the atmosphere, provided that the
sewer line entrance to the first downstream junction box is water
sealed and the sewer line vent pipe is designed as specified in Sec.
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) Closed-vent system requirements. When Sec. 63.148(k) refers to
closed vent systems that are subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.172, the requirements of either Sec. 63.172 or Sec. 63.1034 apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(g) Halogenated vent stream requirements. For each halogenated vent
stream from a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a
Group 1 wastewater stream that is vented through a closed-vent system
to a combustion device to reduce organic HAP emissions, you must meet
the same emission limits as specified for batch process vents in item 2
of Table 2 to this subpart.
(h) Alternative test methods. (1) As an alternative to the test
methods specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i), you may use Method 8260 or
8270 as specified in Sec. 63.1257(b)(10)(iii).
(2) As an alternative to using the methods specified in Sec.
63.144(b)(5)(i), you may conduct wastewater analyses using Method 1666
or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136 and comply with the sampling protocol
requirements specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(ii). The validation
requirements specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(iii) do not apply if you
use Method 1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136.
(3) As an alternative to using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, as
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) and 63.145(i)(2), you may
elect to use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60 as specified in Sec. 63.997.
(i) Offsite management and treatment option. (1) If you ship
wastewater to an offsite treatment facility that meets the requirements
of Sec. 63.138(h), you may elect to document in your notification of
compliance status report that the wastewater will be treated as
hazardous waste at a facility that meets the requirements of Sec.
63.138(h) as an alternative to having the offsite facility submit the
certification specified in Sec. 63.132(g)(2).
(2) As an alternative to the management and treatment options
specified in Sec. 63.132(g)(2), any affected

[[Page 63895]]

wastewater stream (or residual removed from an affected wastewater
stream) with a total annual average concentration of compounds in Table
8 to this subpart less than 50 ppmw may be transferred offsite in
accordance with paragraphs (i)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The transferee (or you) must demonstrate that less than 5
percent of the HAP in Table 9 to this subpart is emitted from the waste
management units up to the activated sludge unit.
(ii) The transferee must treat the wastewater stream or residual in
a biological treatment unit in accordance with Sec. Sec. 63.138 and
63.145 and the requirements referenced therein.
(j) You must determine the annual average concentration and annual
average flowrate for wastewater streams for each MCPU. The procedures
for flexible operation units specified in Sec. 63.144 (b) and (c) do
not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(k) The requirement to correct outlet concentrations from
combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen in Sec. Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii)
and 63.146(i)(6) applies only if supplemental gases are combined with a
vent stream from a Group 1 wastewater stream. If emissions are
controlled with a vapor recovery system as specified in Sec.
63.139(c)(2), you must correct for supplemental gases as specified in
Sec. 63.2460(c)(6).
(l) Requirements for liquid streams in open systems. (1) References
in Sec. 63.149 to Sec. 63.100(b) mean Sec. 63.2435(b) for the
purposes of this subpart.
(2) When Sec. 63.149(e) refers to 40 CFR 63.100(l) (1) or (2),
Sec. 63.2445(a) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
(3) When Sec. 63.149 uses the term ``chemical manufacturing
process unit,'' the term ``MCPU'' applies for the purposes of this
subpart.
(4) When Sec. 63.149(e)(1) refers to characteristics of water that
contain compounds in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, the
characteristics specified in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this
section apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(5) When Sec. 63.149(e)(2) refers to characteristics of water that
contain compounds in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, the
characteristics specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section apply for
the purposes of this subpart.

Sec. 63.2490 What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?

(a) You must comply with each requirement in Table 10 to this
subpart that applies to your heat exchange systems, except as specified
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) The phrase ``a chemical manufacturing process unit meeting the
conditions of Sec. 63.100 (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section'' in
Sec. 63.104(a) means ``an MCPU meeting the conditions of Sec.
63.2435'' for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) The reference to Sec. 63.100(c) in Sec. 63.104(a) does not
apply for the purposes of this subpart.

Alternative Means of Compliance

Sec. 63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?

(a) You may elect to comply with the pollution prevention
alternative requirements specified in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of
this section in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice
standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart for any MCPU
for which initial startup occurred before April 4, 2002.
(1) You must reduce the production-indexed HAP consumption factor
(HAP factor) by at least 65 percent from a 3-year average baseline
beginning no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar years. For any
reduction in the HAP factor that you achieve by reducing HAP that are
also volatile organic compounds (VOC), you must demonstrate an
equivalent reduction in the production-indexed VOC consumption factor
(VOC factor) on a mass basis. For any reduction in the HAP factor that
you achieve by reducing a HAP that is not a VOC, you may not increase
the VOC factor.
(2) Any MCPU for which you seek to comply by using the pollution
prevention alternative must begin with the same starting material(s)
and end with the same product(s). You may not comply by eliminating any
steps of a process by transferring the step offsite (to another
manufacturing location). You may also not merge a solvent recovery step
conducted offsite to onsite and as part of an existing process as a
method of reducing consumption.
(3) You may comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section for a series of processes, including situations where
multiple processes are merged, if you demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that the multiple processes were merged after the
baseline period into an existing process or processes.
(b) Exclusions. (1) You must comply with the emission limitations
and work practice standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 to this
subpart for all HAP that are generated in the MCPU and that are not
included in consumption, as defined in Sec. 63.2550. Hydrogen halides
that are generated as a result of combustion control must be controlled
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the requirements
referenced therein.
(2) You may not merge nondedicated formulation or nondedicated
solvent recovery processes with any other processes.
(c) Initial compliance procedures. To demonstrate initial
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, you must prepare a
demonstration summary in accordance with paragraph (c) (1) of this
section and calculate baseline and target annual HAP and VOC factors in
accordance with paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) of this section.
(1) Demonstration plan. You must prepare a pollution prevention
demonstration plan that contains, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section for each MCPU for
which you comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure and
record consumption of HAP and VOC compounds.
(ii) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure
and record production of the product(s).
(iii) Supporting documentation for the descriptions provided in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section
including, but not limited to, samples of operator log sheets and
daily, monthly, and/or annual inventories of materials and products.
You must describe how this documentation will be used to calculate the
annual factors required in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Baseline factors. You must calculate baseline HAP and VOC
factors by dividing the consumption of total HAP and total VOC by the
production rate, per process, for the first 3-year period in which the
process was operational, beginning no earlier than the period
consisting of the 1994 through 1996 calendar years.
(3) Target annual factors. You must calculate target annual HAP and
VOC factors. The target annual HAP factor must be equal to 35 percent
of the baseline HAP factor. The target annual VOC factor must be lower
than the baseline VOC factor by an amount equivalent to the reduction
in any HAP that is also a VOC, on a mass basis. The target annual VOC
factor may be the same as the baseline VOC factor if the only HAP you
reduce is not a VOC.
(d) Continuous compliance requirements. You must calculate annual
rolling average values of the HAP and VOC factors (annual factors) in
accordance with the procedures

[[Page 63896]]

specified in paragraphs (d) (1) through (3) of this section. To show
continuous compliance, the annual factors must be equal to or less than
the target annual factors calculated according to paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.
(1) To calculate the annual factors, you must divide the
consumption of both total HAP and total VOC by the production rate, per
process, for 12-month periods at the frequency specified in either
paragraph (d) (2) or (3) of this section, as applicable.
(2) For continuous processes, you must calculate the annual factors
every 30 days for the 12-month period preceding the 30th day (i.e.,
annual rolling average calculated every 30 days). A process with both
batch and continuous operations is considered a continuous process for
the purposes of this section.
(3) For batch processes, you must calculate the annual factors
every 10 batches for the 12-month period preceding the 10th batch
(i.e., annual rolling average calculated every 10 batches), except as
specified in paragraphs (d)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) If you produce more than 10 batches during a month, you must
calculate the annual factors at least once during that month.
(ii) If you produce less than 10 batches in a 12-month period, you
must calculate the annual factors for the number of batches in the 12-
month period since the previous calculations.
(e) Records. You must keep records of HAP and VOC consumption,
production, and the rolling annual HAP and VOC factors for each MCPU
for which you are complying with paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) Reporting. (1) You must include the pollution prevention
demonstration plan in the precompliance report required by Sec.
63.2520(c).
(2) You must identify all days when the annual factors were above
the target factors in the compliance reports.

Sec. 63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?

(a) For an existing source, you may elect to comply with the
percent reduction emission limitations in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 to
this subpart by complying with the emissions averaging provisions
specified in Sec. 63.150, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section.
(b) The batch process vents in an MCPU collectively are considered
one individual emission point for the purposes of emissions averaging,
except that only individual batch process vents must be excluded to
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.150(d)(5).
(c) References in Sec. 63.150 to Sec. Sec. 63.112 through 63.130
mean the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.2450 through
63.2490, including applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
(d) References to ``periodic reports'' in Sec. 63.150 mean
``compliance report'' for the purposes of this subpart.
(e) For batch process vents, estimate uncontrolled emissions for a
standard batch using the procedures in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii)
instead of the procedures in Sec. 63.150(g)(2). Multiply the
calculated emissions per batch by the number of batches per month when
calculating the monthly emissions for use in calculating debits and
credits.
(f) References to ``storage vessels'' in Sec. 63.150 mean
``storage tank'' as defined in Sec. 63.2550 for the purposes of this
subpart.

Sec. 63.2505 How do I comply with the alternative standard?

As an alternative to complying with the emission limits and work
practice standards for process vents and storage tanks in Tables 1
through 4 to this subpart and the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.2455
through 63.2470, you may comply with the emission limits in paragraph
(a) of this section and demonstrate compliance in accordance with the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Emission limits and work practice standards. (1) You must route
vent streams through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces HAP emissions as specified in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) If you use a combustion control device, it must reduce HAP
emissions as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this
section.
(A) To an outlet TOC concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) or less.
(B) To an outlet concentration of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
of 20 ppmv or less.
(C) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this section, if
you control halogenated vent streams emitted from a combustion device
followed by a scrubber, reduce the hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
generated in the combustion device by greater than or equal to 95
percent by weight in the scrubber.
(ii) If you use a noncombustion control device(s), it must reduce
HAP emissions to an outlet total organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv
or less, and an outlet concentration of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
of 50 ppmv or less.
(2) Any Group 1 process vents within a process that are not
controlled according to this alternative standard must be controlled
according to the emission limits in Tables 1 through 3 to this subpart.
(b) Compliance requirements. To demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.1258(b)(5)(i) beginning no later than the initial compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.2445, except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) You must comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.983 and the
requirements referenced therein for closed-vent systems.
(2) When Sec. 63.1258(b)(5)(i) refers to Sec. Sec. 63.1253(d) and
63.1254(c), the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
(3) You must submit the results of any determination of the target
analytes or predominant HAP in the notification of compliance status
report.
(4) When Sec. 63.1258(b)(5)(i)(B) refers to ``HCl,'' it means
``total hydrogen halide and halogen HAP'' for the purposes of this
subpart.
(5) If you elect to comply with the requirement to reduce hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP by greater than or equal to 95 percent by weight
in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Demonstrate initial compliance with the 95 percent reduction by
conducting a performance test and setting a site-specific operating
limit(s) for the scrubber in accordance with Sec. 63.994 and the
requirements referenced therein. You must submit the results of the
initial compliance demonstration in the notification of compliance
status report.
(ii) Install, operate, and maintain CPMS for the scrubber as
specified in Sec. 63.2450(k), instead of as specified in Sec.
63.1258(b)(5)(i)(C).
(6) If flow to the scrubber could be intermittent, you must
install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator as specified in Sec.
63.2460(c)(7).
(7) Use the operating day as the averaging period for CEMS data and
scrubber parameter monitoring data.

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5),

[[Page 63897]]

63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) Initial notification. As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you
startup your affected source before November 10, 2003, you must submit
an initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after November
10, 2003.
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new
affected source on or after November 10, 2003, you must submit an
initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become
subject to this subpart.
(c) Notification of performance test. 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).
For any performance test required as part of the initial compliance
procedures for batch process vents in Table 2 to this subpart, you must
also submit the test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c) and the emission
profile with the notification of the performance test.

Sec. 63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 11 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 11 to this subpart and according to paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.2445 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first 6 months after the compliance
date that is specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.2445.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than August 31 or February 28, whichever date is the first date
following the end of the first reporting period specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than August 31 or February 28, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(c) Precompliance report. You must submit a precompliance report to
request approval for any of the items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7)
of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report within
90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you must
still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards in this subpart by the compliance date. To change any of the
information submitted in the report, you must notify us 60 days before
the planned change is to be implemented.
(1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters
other than those specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through 63.2485 and
referenced therein. Alternatively, you may make these requests
according to Sec. 63.8(f).
(2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to Sec. 63.2460(c)(5) are operating as
designed.
(3) A description of the test conditions, data, calculations, and
other information used to establish operating limits according to Sec.
63.2460(c)(3).
(4) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to
calculate uncontrolled emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(ii).
(5) The pollution prevention demonstration plan required in Sec.
63.2495(c)(1), if you are complying with the pollution prevention
alternative.
(6) Documentation of the practices that you will implement to
minimize HAP emissions from streams that contain energetics and organic
peroxides, and rationale for why meeting the emission limit specified
in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart would create an undue safety
hazard.
(7) For fabric filters that are monitored with bag leak detectors,
an operation and maintenance plan that describes proper operation and
maintenance procedures, and a corrective action plan that describes
corrective actions to be taken, and the timing of those actions, when
the PM concentration exceeds the set point and activates the alarm.
(d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must contain the information specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
(1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.2445.
(2) The notification of compliance status report must include the
information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP emissions
from the affected source.
(ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments,
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial
compliance according to Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through 63.2485. For
performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and
analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures.
(iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies,
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels
you establish.
(iv) All operating scenarios.
(v) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions
for control devices.
(vi) Identification of parts of the affected source subject to
overlapping requirements described in Sec. 63.2535 and the authority
under which you will comply.
(vii) The information specified in Sec. 63.1039(a)(1) through (3)
for each process subject to the work practice standards for equipment
leaks in Table 6 to this subpart.
(viii) Identify storage tanks for which you are complying with the
vapor balancing alternative in Sec. 63.2470(g).
(ix) Records as specified in Sec. 63.2535(i)(1) through (3) of
process units used to create a PUG and calculations of the initial
primary product of the PUG.
(e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (10) of this
section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.

[[Page 63898]]

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the
compliance report must include records that the procedures specified in
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) were followed or
documentation of actions taken that are not consistent with the SSMP,
and include a brief description of each malfunction.
(5) The compliance report must contain the information on
deviations, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, according to paragraphs
(e)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.
(i) If there are no deviations from any emission limit, operating
limit or work practice standard specified in this subpart, include a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limits,
operating limits, or work practice standards during the reporting
period.
(ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit,
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you
are not using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the
emission limit or work practice standard in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section. This includes periods of SSM.
(A) The total operating time of the affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(C) Operating logs for the day(s) during which the deviation
occurred, except operating logs are not required for deviations of the
work practice standards for equipment leaks.
(iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply
with an emission limit in this subpart, you must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(5)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM.
(A) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each CEMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(C) 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.
(D) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
operating time of the affected source during that reporting period.
(E) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(F) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total operating time of the affected source during that
reporting period.
(G) An identification of each HAP that is known to be in the
emission stream.
(H) A brief description of the process units.
(I) A brief description of the CMS.
(J) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(K) Operating logs for each day(s) during which the deviation
occurred.
(L) The operating day or operating block average values of
monitored parameters for each day(s) during which the deviation
occurred.
(6) If you use a CEMS, and there were no periods during which it
was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), include a
statement that there were no periods during which the CEMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(7) Include each new operating scenario which has been operated
since the time period covered by the last compliance report and has not
been submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a
previous compliance report. For each new operating scenario, you must
provide verification that the operating conditions for any associated
control or treatment device have not been exceeded and that any
required calculations and engineering analyses have been performed. For
the purposes of this paragraph, a revised operating scenario for an
existing process is considered to be a new operating scenario.
(8) Records of process units added to a PUG as specified in Sec.
63.2525(i)(4) and records of primary product redeterminations as
specified in Sec. 63.2525(i)(5).
(9) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as
specified in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this
part.
(10) Notification of process change. (i) Except as specified in
paragraph (e)(10)(ii) of this section, whenever you make a process
change, or change any of the information submitted in the notification
of compliance status report, that is not within the scope of an
existing operating scenario, you must document the change in your
compliance report. A process change does not include moving within a
range of conditions identified in the standard batch. The notification
must include all of the information in paragraphs (e)(10)(i)(A) through
(C) of this section.
(A) A description of the process change.
(B) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
notification of compliance status report under paragraph (d) of this
section.
(C) Information required by the notification of compliance status
report under paragraph (d) of this section for changes involving the
addition of processes or equipment at the affected source.
(ii) You must submit a report 60 days before the scheduled
implementation date of any of the changes identified in paragraph
(e)(10)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(A) Any change to the information contained in the precompliance
report.
(B) A change in the status of a control device from small to large.
(C) A change from Group 2 to Group 1 for any emission point.

Sec. 63.2525 What records must I keep?

You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (k)
of this section.
(a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63
and in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this part 63.
(b) Records of each operating scenario as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) A description of the process and the type of process equipment
used.
(2) An identification of related process vents, including their
associated emissions episodes if not complying with the alternative
standard in Sec. 63.2505; wastewater point of determination (POD);
storage tanks; and transfer racks.
(3) The applicable control requirements of this subpart, including
the level of required control, and for vents, the level of control for
each vent.
(4) The control device or treatment process used, as applicable,
including a description of operating and/or testing conditions for any
associated control device.
(5) The process vents, wastewater POD, transfer racks, and storage
tanks (including those from other processes) that are simultaneously
routed to the control device or treatment process(s).

[[Page 63899]]

(6) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and any
parametric level that assures compliance for all emissions routed to
the control device or treatment process.
(7) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate
compliance.
(8) For reporting purposes, a change to any of these elements not
previously reported, except for paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
constitutes a new operating scenario.
(c) A schedule or log of operating scenarios updated each time a
different operating scenario is put into operation.
(d) The information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section for Group 1 batch process vents in compliance with a percent
reduction emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart if some of the
vents are controlled to less the percent reduction requirement.
(1) Records of whether each batch operated was considered a
standard batch.
(2) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
(e) The information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of
this section for each process with Group 2 batch process vents or
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from the sum of
all batch and continuous process vents less than 1,000 lb/yr. No record
is required if you documented in the notification of compliance status
report that the MCPU does not process, use, or produce HAP.
(1) A record of the day each batch was completed.
(2) A record of whether each batch operated was considered a
standard batch.
(3) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
(4) Records of the daily 365-day rolling summations of emissions,
or alternative records that correlate to the emissions (e.g., number of
batches), calculated no less frequently than monthly.
(f) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.2450(s).
(g) Records of the results of each CPMS calibration check and the
maintenance performed, as specified in Sec. 63.2450(k)(1).
(h) For each CEMS, you must keep records of the date and time that
each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another
period.
(i) For each PUG, you must keep records specified in paragraphs
(i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Descriptions of the MCPU and other process units in the initial
PUG required by Sec. 63.2535(l)(1)(v).
(2) Rationale for including each MCPU and other process unit in the
initial PUG (i.e., identify the overlapping equipment between process
units) required by Sec. 63.2535(l)(1)(v).
(3) Calculations used to determine the primary product for the
initial PUG required by Sec. 63.2535(l)(2)(iv).
(4) Descriptions of process units added to the PUG after the
creation date and rationale for including the additional process units
in the PUG as required by Sec. 63.2535(l)(1)(v).
(5) The calculation of each primary product redetermination
required by Sec. 63.2535(l)(2)(iv).
(j) In the SSMP required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you are not required
to include Group 2 emission points, unless those emission points are
used in an emissions average. For equipment leaks, the SSMP requirement
is limited to control devices and is optional for other equipment.
(k) For each bag leak detector used to monitor PM HAP emissions
from a fabric filter, maintain records of any bag leak detection alarm,
including the date and time, with a brief explanation of the cause of
the alarm and the corrective action taken.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.2535 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

For any equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream subject to
the provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may elect to
comply only with the provisions as specified in paragraphs (a) through
(l) of this section. You also must identify the subject equipment,
emission stream, or wastewater stream, and the provisions with which
you will comply, in your notification of compliance status report
required by Sec. 63.2520(d).
(a) Compliance with other subparts of this part 63. If you have an
MCPU that includes a batch process vent that also is part of a CMPU as
defined in subparts F and G of this part 63, you must comply with the
emission limits; operating limits; work practice standards; and the
compliance, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
batch process vents in this subpart, and you must continue to comply
with the requirements in subparts F, G, and H of this part 63 that are
applicable to the CMPU and associated equipment.
(b) Compliance with 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB, and/
or CC. (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if a
control device that you use to comply with this subpart is also subject
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
264, subpart AA, BB, or CC; or the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC; and you comply
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if your facility had
final-permitted status, you may elect to comply either with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart;
or with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part
264 or 265 and the reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, as
described in this paragraph (b)(1), which constitute compliance with
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this
subpart. If you elect to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, you must report
the information described in Sec. 63.2520(e).
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to 40 CFR
part 264, subpart BB, or to 40 CFR part 265, subpart BB, then
compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR
parts 264 and/or 265 may be used to comply with the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this subpart, to the extent that the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265 duplicate the requirements
of this subpart.
(c) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart Y. After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, you
are in compliance with the provisions of this subpart FFFF for any
storage tank that is assigned to an MCPU and that is both controlled
with a floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of either 40
CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y. You are in
compliance with this subpart FFFF if you have a storage tank with a
fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device in compliance with
the provisions of either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61,
subpart Y, except that you must comply with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart FFFF.
Alternatively, if a storage tank assigned to an MCPU is subject to
control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y,
you may elect to

[[Page 63900]]

comply only with the requirements for Group 1 storage tanks in this
subpart FFFF.
(d) Compliance with subpart I, GGG, or MMM of this part 63. After
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source with equipment subject to subpart I, GGG, or MMM of
this part 63, you may elect to comply with the provisions of subpart H,
GGG, or MMM of this part 63, respectively, for all such equipment.
(e) Compliance with subpart GGG of this part 63 for wastewater.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source subject to this subpart and you have an affected source
that generates wastewater streams that meet the applicability
thresholds specified in Sec. 63.1256, you may elect to comply with the
provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such wastewater streams.
(f) Compliance with subpart MMM of this part 63 for wastewater.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source subject to this subpart, and you have an affected
source that generates wastewater streams that meet the applicability
thresholds specified in Sec. 63.1362(d), you may elect to comply with
the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such wastewater streams
(except that the 99 percent reduction requirement for streams subject
to Sec. 63.1362(d)(10) still applies).
(g) Compliance with other regulations for wastewater. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have a Group 1
wastewater stream that is also subject to provisions in 40 CFR parts
260 through 272, you may elect to determine whether this subpart or 40
CFR parts 260 through 272 contain the more stringent control
requirements (e.g., design, operation, and inspection requirements for
waste management units; numerical treatment standards; etc.) and the
more stringent testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Compliance with provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through
272 that are determined to be more stringent than the requirements of
this subpart constitute compliance with this subpart. For example,
provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 for treatment units that
meet the conditions specified in Sec. 63.138(h) constitute compliance
with this subpart. You must identify in the notification of compliance
status report required by Sec. 63.2520(d) the information and
procedures that you used to make any stringency determinations.
(h) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III, NNN, or RRR.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
MCPU that contains equipment subject to the provisions of this subpart
that are also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD,
III, NNN, or RRR, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such
equipment in the MCPU. If an MCPU subject to the provisions of this
subpart has equipment to which this subpart does not apply but which is
subject to a standard in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III, NNN, or RRR,
you may elect to comply with the requirements for Group 1 process vents
in this subpart for such equipment. If you elect any of these methods
of compliance, you must consider all total organic compounds, minus
methane and ethane, in such equipment for purposes of compliance with
this subpart, as if they were organic HAP. Compliance with the
provisions of this subpart, in the manner described in this paragraph
(h), will constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III,
NNN, or RRR, as applicable.
(i) Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB. (1) After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, a Group 1 transfer rack,
as defined in Sec. 63.2550, that is also subject to the provisions of
40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, you are required to comply only with the
provisions of this subpart.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, a Group
2 transfer rack, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, that is also subject to
the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, is required to comply
with the provisions of either paragraph (l)(2)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) If the transfer rack is subject to the control requirements
specified in Sec. 61.302 of 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, then you may
elect to comply with either the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart
BB, or the requirements for Group 1 transfer racks under this subpart
FFFF.
(ii) If the transfer rack is subject only to reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, then you
are required to comply only with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements specified in this subpart for Group 2 transfer racks, and
you are exempt from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40
CFR part 61, subpart BB.
(j) Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. After the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445, for a Group 1 or Group 2
wastewater stream that is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
61.342(c) through (h), and is not exempt under 40 CFR 61.342(c)(2) or
(3), you may elect to comply only with the requirements for Group 1
wastewater streams in this subpart FFFF. If a Group 2 wastewater stream
is exempted from 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) under 40 CFR 61.342(c)(2) or (3),
then you are required to comply only with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements specified in this subpart for Group 2
wastewater streams, and you are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR
part 61, subpart FF.
(k) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V. After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such equipment.
Alternatively, if you have an affected source with no continuous
process vents and equipment that is also subject to the requirements of
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, you may elect
to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V,
as applicable, for all such equipment.
(l) Applicability of process units included in a process unit
group. You may elect to develop and comply with the requirements for
PUG in accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Procedures to create process unit groups. Develop and document
changes in a PUG in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Initially, identify an MCPU that is created from nondedicated
equipment that will operate on or after November 10, 2003 and identify
all processing equipment that is part of this MCPU, based on
descriptions in operating scenarios.
(ii) Add to the group any other nondedicated MCPU and other
nondedicated process units expected to be operated in the 5 years after
the date specified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section, provided
they satisfy the criteria specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) through
(C) of this section. Also identify all of the processing equipment used
for each process unit based on information from operating scenarios and
other applicable documentation.
(A) Each process unit that is added to a group must have some
processing equipment that is also part of one or more process units in
the group.
(B) No process unit may be part of more than one PUG.
(C) The processing equipment used to satisfy the requirement of
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(A) of this section may not be a storage tank or
control device.

[[Page 63901]]

(iii) The initial PUG consists of all of the processing equipment
for the process units identified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section. As an alternative to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, you may use a PUG that
was developed in accordance with Sec. 63.1360(h) as your initial PUG.
(iv) Add process units developed in the future in accordance with
the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(v) Maintain records that describe the process units in the initial
PUG, the procedure used to create the PUG, and subsequent changes to
each PUG as specified in Sec. 63.2525(i). Submit the records in
reports as specified in Sec. 63.2520(d)(2)(ix) and (e)(8).
(2) Determine primary product. You must determine the primary
product of each PUG created in paragraph (l)(1) of this section
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) The primary product is the type of product (e.g., organic
chemicals subject to Sec. 63.2435(b)(1), pharmaceutical products
subject to Sec. 63.1250, or pesticide active ingredients subject to
Sec. 63.1360) expected to be produced for the greatest operating time
in the 5-year period specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) If the PUG produces multiple types of products equally based
on operating time, then the primary product is the type of product with
the greatest production on a mass basis over the 5-year period
specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of this section.
(iii) At a minimum, you must redetermine the primary product of the
PUG following the procedure specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (ii)
of this section every 5 years.
(iv) You must record the calculation of the initial primary product
determination as specified in Sec. 63.2525(i)(3) and report the
results in the notification of compliance status report as specified in
Sec. 63.2520(d)(8)(ix). You must record the calculation of each
redetermination of the primary product as specified in Sec.
63.2525(i)(5) and report the calculation in a compliance report
submitted no later than the report covering the period for the end of
the 5th year after cessation of production of the previous primary
product, as specified in Sec. 63.2520(e)(8).
(3) Compliance requirements. (i) If the primary product of the PUG
is determined according to paragraph (l)(2) of this section to be
material described in Sec. 63.2435(b)(1), then you must comply with
this subpart for each MCPU in the PUG. You may also elect to comply
with this subpart for all other process units in the PUG, which
constitutes compliance with other part 63 rules.
(ii) If the primary product of the PUG is determined according to
paragraph (l)(2) of this section to be material not described in Sec.
63.2435(b)(1), then you must comply with paragraph (l)(3)(ii)(A), (B),
or (C) of this section, as applicable.
(A) If the primary product is subject to subpart GGG of this part
63, then comply with the requirements of subpart GGG for each MCPU in
the PUG.
(B) If the primary product is subject to subpart MMM of this part
63, then comply with the requirements of subpart MMM for each MCPU in
the PUG.
(C) If the primary product is subject to any subpart in this part
63 other than subpart GGG or subpart MMM, then comply with the
requirements of this subpart for each MCPU in the PUG.
(iii) The requirements for new and reconstructed sources in the
alternative subpart apply to all MCPU in the PUG if and only if the
affected source under the alternative subpart meets the requirements
for construction or reconstruction.

Sec. 63.2540 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 12 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Sec. 63.2545 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
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 also 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 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are
not delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission limits and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.2450(a) under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Sec. 63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?

(a) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart SS of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart SS of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec. 63.981,
except as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2450(k)(2) and (m), 63.2470(c)(2),
63.2475(b), and paragraph (i) of this section.
(b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart TT of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart TT of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.
63.1001.
(c) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart UU of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart UU of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.
63.1020.
(d) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart WW of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and subpart
WW of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec. 63.1061, except
as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2450(m), 63.2470(c)(2), and paragraph (i)
of this section.
(e) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.132 through 63.149, the terms used in this subpart and
Sec. Sec. 63.132 through 63.149 have the meaning given them in
Sec. Sec. 63.101 and 63.111, except as specified in Sec. 63.2450(m)
and paragraph (i) of this section.
(f) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.104 and 63.105, the terms used in this subpart and in
Sec. Sec. 63.104 and 63.105 of this subpart have the meaning given
them in Sec. 63.101, except as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2450(m),
63.2490(b), and paragraph (i) of this section.
(g) For an affected source complying with requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258, the terms used in this
subpart and in Sec. Sec. 63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258 have the
meaning given them in Sec. 63.1251, except as specified in Sec.
63.2450(m) and paragraph (i) of this section.
(h) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 40
CFR part 65, subpart F, the terms used in this subpart and in 40 CFR
part 65, subpart

[[Page 63902]]

F, have the meaning given them in 40 CFR 65.2.
(i) All other terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean
Air Act (CAA), in 40 CFR 63.2, and in this paragraph (i). If a term is
defined in Sec. 63.2, Sec. 63.101, Sec. 63.111, Sec. 63.981, Sec.
63.1001, Sec. 63.1020, Sec. 63.1061, Sec. 63.1251, or Sec. 65.2 and
in this paragraph (i), the definition in this paragraph (i) applies for
the purposes of this subpart.
Ancillary activities means boilers and incinerators (not used to
comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart),
chillers and refrigeration systems, and other equipment and activities
that are not directly involved (i.e., they operate within a closed
system and materials are not combined with process fluids) in the
processing of raw materials or the manufacturing of a product or
isolated intermediate.
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving
intermittent or discontinuous feed into equipment, and, in general,
involves the emptying of the equipment after the operation ceases and
prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and
withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a batch operation.
Batch process vent means a vent from a unit operation or vents from
multiple unit operations within a process that are manifolded together
into a common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or
has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of batch
process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used
for product recovery, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process
tanks. The following are not batch process vents for the purposes of
this subpart:
(1) Continuous process vents;
(2) Bottoms receivers;
(3) Surge control vessels;
(4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s);
(5) Vents on storage tanks, wastewater emission sources, or pieces
of equipment subject to the emission limits and work practice standards
in Tables 4, 6, and 7 to this subpart;
(6) Drums, pails, and totes;
(7) Flexible elephant trunk systems that draw ambient air (i.e.,
the system is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit
operations) away from operators when vessels are opened; and
(8) Emission streams from emission episodes that are undiluted and
uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP or less than 200 lb/yr.
The HAP concentration or mass emission rate may be determined using any
of the following: process knowledge that no HAP are present in the
emission stream; an engineering assessment as discussed in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(ii); equations specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i), as
applicable; test data using Methods 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
or any other test method that has been validated according to the
procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part 63.
Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous
distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further
downstream processing.
Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or
installation of an affected source or MCPU. Addition of new equipment
to an MCPU subject to existing source standards does not constitute
construction, but it may constitute reconstruction of the affected
source or MCPU if it satisfies the definition of reconstruction in
Sec. 63.2.
Consumption means the quantity of all HAP raw materials entering a
process in excess of the theoretical amount used as reactant, assuming
100 percent stoichiometric conversion. The raw materials include
reactants, solvents, and any other additives. If a HAP is generated in
the process as well as added as a raw material, consumption includes
the quantity generated in the process.
Continuous process vent means the point of discharge to the
atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control device, if any) of a
gas stream if the gas stream has the characteristics specified in Sec.
63.107(b) through (h), or meets the criteria specified in Sec.
63.107(i), except:
(1) The reference in Sec. 63.107(e) to a chemical manufacturing
process unit that meets the criteria of Sec. 63.100(b) means an MCPU
that meets the criteria of Sec. 63.2435(b);
(2) The reference in Sec. 63.107(h)(4) to Sec. 63.113 means Table
1 to this subpart;
(3) The references in Sec. 63.107(h)(7) to Sec. Sec. 63.119 and
63.126 mean Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart; and
(4) For the purposes of Sec. 63.2455, all references to the
characteristics of a process vent (e.g., flowrate, total HAP
concentration, or TRE index value) mean the characteristics of the gas
stream.
Dedicated MCPU means an MCPU that consists of equipment that is
used exclusively for one process, except that storage tanks assigned to
the process according to the procedures in Sec. 63.2435(d) also may be
shared by other processes.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Energetics means propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics and
include materials listed at 49 CFR 172.101 as Hazard Class I Hazardous
Materials, Divisions 1.1 through 1.6.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve,
connector, and instrumentation system in organic HAP service; and any
control devices or systems used to comply with Table 6 to this subpart.
Excess emissions means emissions greater than those allowed by the
emission limit.
Family of materials means a grouping of materials with the same
basic composition or the same basic end use or functionality produced
using the same basic feedstocks with essentially identical HAP emission
profiles (primary constituent and relative magnitude on a pound per
product basis) and manufacturing equipment configuration. Examples of
families of materials include multiple grades of the same product or
different variations of a product (e.g., blue, black, and red resins).
Group 1 batch process vent means each of the batch process vents in
a process for which the collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions
from all of the batch process vents are greater than or equal to 10,000
lb/yr at an existing source or greater than or equal to 3,000 lb/yr at
a new source.
Group 2 batch process vent means each batch process vent that does
not meet the definition of Group 1 batch process vent.
Group 1 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent
with a total resource effectiveness index value, calculated according
to Sec. 63.2455(b), that is less than 1.9 at an existing source and
less than 5.0 at a new source.
Group 2 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent
that

[[Page 63903]]

does not meet the definition of a Group 1 continuous process vent.
Group 1 storage tank means a storage tank with a capacity greater
than or equal to 10,000 gal storing material that has a maximum true
vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 6.9 kilopascals at
an existing source or greater than or equal to 0.69 kilopascals at a
new source.
Group 2 storage tank means a storage tank that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1 storage tank.
Group 1 transfer rack means a transfer rack that loads more than
0.65 million liters/year of liquids that contain organic HAP with a
rack-weighted average partial pressure, as defined in Sec. 63.111,
greater than or equal to 1.5 pound per square inch absolute.
Group 2 transfer rack means a transfer rack that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1 transfer rack.
Group 1 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream consisting of
process wastewater at an existing or new source that meets the criteria
for Group 1 status in Sec. 63.2485(c) for compounds in Tables 8 and 9
to this subpart and/or a wastewater stream consisting of process
wastewater at a new source that meets the criteria for Group 1 status
in Sec. 63.132(d) for compounds in Table 8 to subpart G of this part
63.
Group 2 wastewater stream means any process wastewater stream that
does not meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Halogenated vent stream means a vent stream determined to have a
mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds of
0.45 kilograms per hour or greater determined by the procedures
presented in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v).
Hydrogen halide and halogen HAP means hydrogen chloride, hydrogen
fluoride, and chlorine.
In organic HAP service means that a piece of equipment either
contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent
by weight of total organic HAP as determined according to the
provisions of Sec. 63.180(d). The provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) also
specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in organic
HAP service.
Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a
product of a chemical synthesis, fermentation, or biological extraction
process. Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a
process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is placed in
equipment used solely for storage.
Large control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tpy, before control.
Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining
of process fluid from components in the MCPU into an individual drain
system in preparation for or during maintenance activities. Maintenance
wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and
during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities
that can generate maintenance wastewater include descaling of heat
exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps,
draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of
portions of the MCPU for repair. Wastewater from routine cleaning
operations occurring as part of batch operations is not considered
maintenance wastewater.
Maximum true vapor pressure has the meaning given in Sec. 63.111,
except that it applies to all HAP rather than only organic HAP.
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process means all
equipment which collectively function to produce a product or isolated
intermediate that are materials described in Sec. 63.2435(b). For the
purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all or a combination of
reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity,
operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a
product or isolated intermediate. A process is also defined by the
following:
(1) Routine cleaning operations conducted as part of batch
operations are considered part of the process;
(2) Each nondedicated solvent recovery operation is considered a
single process;
(3) Each nondedicated formulation operation is considered a single
process that is used to formulate numerous materials and/or products;
(4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories are not
considered part of any process; and
(5) Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of
any process.
Nondedicated solvent recovery operation means a distillation unit
or other purification equipment that receives used solvent from more
than one MCPU.
Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of
the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing
operating scenario but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For
example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or
processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to
produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions
described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary
as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
On-site or on site means, with respect to records required to be
maintained by this subpart or required by another subpart referenced by
this subpart, that records are stored at a location within a major
source which encompasses the affected source. On-site includes, but is
not limited to, storage at the affected source or MCPU to which the
records pertain, or storage in central files elsewhere at the major
source.
Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and
recordkeeping, any specific operation of an MCPU as described by
records specified in Sec. 63.2525(b).
Organic group means structures that contain primarily carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen atoms.
Organic peroxides means organic compounds containing the bivalent -
o-o-structure which may be considered to be a structural derivative of
hydrogen peroxide where one or both of the hydrogen atoms has been
replaced by an organic radical.
Predominant HAP means as used in calibrating an analyzer, the
single organic HAP that constitutes the largest percentage of the total
organic HAP in the analyzed gas stream, by volume.
Process tank means a tank or vessel that is used within a process
to collect material discharged from a feedstock storage tank or
equipment within the process before the material is transferred to
other equipment within the process or a product storage tank. A process
tank has emissions that are related to the characteristics of the batch
cycle, and it does not accumulate product over multiple batches. Surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers are not process tanks.
Production-indexed HAP consumption factor (HAP factor) means the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total HAP by the annual
production rate, per process.
Production-indexed VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) means the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total VOC by the annual
production rate, per process.
Quaternary ammonium compounds means a type of organic nitrogen
compound in which the molecular structure includes a central nitrogen
atom joined to four organic groups as well as an acid radical of some
sort.

[[Page 63904]]

Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment used for the
purpose of recovering chemicals from process vent streams for reuse in
a process at the affected source and from wastewater streams for fuel
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for
fuel value, use or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a
recovery device for a wastewater stream, a decanter and any other
equipment based on the operating principle of gravity separation must
receive only multi-phase liquid streams.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the
purposes of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine
venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover
such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in
response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A
safety device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal
operations and open only when the internal pressure, or another
relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold setting applicable to
the air emission control equipment as determined by the owner or
operator based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations,
fire protection and prevention codes and practices, or other
requirements for the safe handling of flammable, combustible,
explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a continuous operation
for any purpose. Shutdown also means the cessation of a batch
operation, or any related individual piece of equipment required or
used to comply with this subpart, if the steps taken to cease operation
differ from those described in a standard batch or nonstandard batch.
Shutdown also applies to emptying and degassing storage vessels.
Shutdown does not apply to cessation of batch operations at the end of
a campaign or between batches within a campaign when the steps taken
are routine operations.
Small control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of less than 10 tpy, before control.
Standard batch means a batch process operated within a range of
operating conditions that are documented in an operating scenario.
Emissions from a standard batch are based on the operating conditions
that result in highest emissions. The standard batch defines the
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each emission episode defined
under the operating scenario.
Startup means the setting in operation of a continuous operation
for any purpose; the first time a new or reconstructed batch operation
begins production; for new equipment added, including equipment
required or used to comply with this subpart, the first time the
equipment is put into operation; or for the introduction of a new
product/process, the first time the product or process is run in
equipment. For batch operations, startup applies to the first time the
equipment is put into operation at the start of a campaign to produce a
product that has been produced in the past if the steps taken to begin
production differ from those specified in a standard batch or
nonstandard batch. Startup does not apply when the equipment is put
into operation as part of a batch within a campaign when the steps
taken are routine operations.
Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
liquids that contain organic HAP and/or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
and that has been assigned to an MCPU according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.2435(d). The following are not considered storage tanks for
the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only as
impurities;
(4) Wastewater storage tanks;
(5) Bottoms receivers;
(6) Surge control vessels; and
(7) Process tanks.
Supplemental gases are any gaseous streams that are not defined as
process vents, or closed-vent systems from wastewater management and
treatment units, storage tanks, or equipment components and that
contain less than 50 ppmv TOC, as determined through process knowledge,
that are introduced into vent streams or manifolds. Air required to
operate combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental gas.
Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and
intermediate vessels immediately preceding continuous reactors, air-
oxidation reactors, or distillation operations. Surge control vessels
are used within an MCPU when in-process storage, mixing, or management
of flowrates or volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous
reactors, air-oxidation reactors, or distillation operations.
Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream.
Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are assigned to an MCPU according
to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.2435(d) and are used to fill
tank trucks and/or rail cars with organic liquids that contain one or
more of the organic HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA of this
subpart. Transfer rack includes the associated pumps, meters, shutoff
valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves.
Unit operation means those processing steps that occur within
distinct equipment that are used, among other things, to prepare
reactants, facilitate reactions, separate and purify products, and
recycle materials. Equipment used for these purposes includes, but is
not limited to, reactors, distillation columns, extraction columns,
absorbers, decanters, dryers, condensers, and filtration equipment.
Waste management unit means the equipment, structure(s), and/or
device(s) used to convey, store, treat, or dispose of wastewater
streams or residuals. Examples of waste management units include
wastewater tanks, air flotation units, surface impoundments,
containers, oil-water or organic-water separators, individual drain
systems, biological wastewater treatment units, waste incinerators, and
organic removal devices such as steam and air stripper units, and thin
film evaporation units. If such equipment is being operated as a
recovery device, then it is part of a miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process and is not a waste management unit.
Wastewater means water that is discarded from an MCPU through a
single POD and that contains either: an annual average concentration of
compounds in Table 8 or 9 to this subpart of at least 5 ppmw and has an
annual average flowrate of 0.02 liters per minute or greater; or an
annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 or 9 to this
subpart of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. The

[[Page 63905]]

following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(3) Spills;
(4) Water from safety showers;
(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the
method of analysis that is used;
(6) Equipment leaks;
(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses
after cleaning lines; and
(8) Noncontact cooling water.
Wastewater stream means a stream that contains only wastewater as
defined in this paragraph (h).
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

As required in Sec. 63.2455, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
continuous process vents:

Table 1 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards for Continuous Process Vents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 continuous process vent...... a. Not applicable.......... i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
by £=98 percent by weight or
to an outlet process concentration <=20
ppmv as organic HAP or TOC by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system
to any combination of control devices
(except a flare); or
ii. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
by venting emissions through a closed
vent system to a flare; or
iii. Use a recovery device to maintain
the TRE above 1.9 for an existing source
or above 5.0 for a new source.
2. Halogenated Group 1 continuous a. You use a combustion i. Use a halogen reduction device after
process vent stream. control device to control the combustion device to reduce
organic HAP emissions. emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP by £=99 percent by weight,
or to <=0.45 kg/hr, or to <=20 ppmv; or
ii. Use a halogen reduction device before
the combustion device to reduce the
halogen atom mass emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr or to a concentration <=20
ppmv.
3. Group 2 continuous process vent at an You use a recovery device Comply with the requirements in Sec.
existing source. to maintain the TRE level 63.993 and the requirements referenced
£1.9 but <=5.0. therein.
4. Group 2 continuous process vent at a You use a recovery device Comply with the requirements in Sec.
new source. to maintain the TRE level 63.993 and the requirements referenced
£5.0 but <=8.0. therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2460, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
batch process vents:

Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63. Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Batch Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . Then you must . . . And you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with Group 1 a. Reduce collective Not applicable.
batch process vents. uncontrolled
organic HAP
emissions from the
sum of all batch
process vents
within the process
by £=98
percent by weight
by venting
emissions from a
sufficient number
of the vents
through a closed-
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
(except a flare);
or
b. Reduce collective Not applicable.
uncontrolled
organic HAP
emissions from the
sum of all batch
process vents
within the process
by £=95
percent by weight
by venting
emissions from a
sufficient number
of the vents
through a closed-
vent system to any
combination of
recovery devices;
or
c. For all batch Not applicable.
process vents
within the process
that are not
controlled by
venting through a
closed-vent system
to a flare or to
any other
combination of
control devices
that reduce total
organic HAP to an
outlet
concentration <=20
ppmv as TOC or
total organic HAP,
reduce organic HAP
emissions by
venting emissions
from a sufficient
number of the vents
through a closed-
vent system to any
combination of
recovery devices
that reduce
collective
emissions by
£95 percent
by weight and/or
any combination of
control devices
that reduce
collective
emissions by
£=98 percent
by weight.

[[Page 63906]]

2. Halogenated Group 1 batch a. Use a halogen i. Reduce overall
process vent for which you reduction device emissions of
use a combustion device to after the hydrogen halide and
control organic HAP combustion control halogen HAP by
emissions. device; or £99 percent;
or
ii. Reduce overall
emissions of
hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP to
<=0.45 kg/hr; or
iii. Reduce overall
emissions of
hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP to a
concentration <=20
ppmv.
b. Use a halogen Reduce the halogen
reduction device atom mass emission
before the rate to <=0.45 kg/
combustion control hr or to a
device. concentration <=20
ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2465, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to your process vents that contain
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions or PM HAP emissions:

Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Hydrogen Halide
and Halogen HAP Emissions or PM HAP Emissions From Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with uncontrolled Reduce collective hydrogen halide
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP and halogen HAP emissions by
emissions from process vents £99 percent by weight or to
£1,000 lb/yr. an outlet concentration <20 ppmv by
venting through a closed-vent
system to any combination of
control devices.
2. Process at a new source with Reduce overall PM HAP emissions by
uncontrolled PM HAP emissions £=97 percent by weight.
from process vents
£400 lb/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2470, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to your storage tanks:

Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 storage tank................. a. The maximum true vapor i. Reduce total HAP emissions by
pressure of total HAP at £95 percent by weight or to <=20 ppmv
the storage temperature is of TOC or organic HAP and <=20 ppmv of
£=76.6 hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by
kilopascals. venting emissions through a closed vent
system to any combination of control
devices (excluding a flare); or
ii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions by
venting emissions through a closed vent
system to a flare; or
iii. Reduce total HAP emissions by
venting emissions to a fuel gas system
or process.
b. The maximum true vapor i. Comply with the requirements of
pressure of total HAP at subpart WW of this part, except as
the storage temperature is specified in Sec. 63.2470; or
<=76.6 kilopascals. ii. Reduce total HAP emissions by
£95 percent by weight or to <20 ppmv
of TOC or organic HAP and <20 ppmv of
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by
venting emissions through a closed vent
system to any combination of control
devices (excluding a flare); or
iii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
by venting emissions through a closed
vent system to a flare; or
iv. Reduce total HAP emissions by venting
emissions to a fuel gas system or
process.
2. Halogenated vent stream from a Group You use a combustion Meet one of the emission limit options
1 storage tank. control device to control specified in Item 2.a.i or ii. in Table
organic HAP emissions. 1 to this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2475, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
transfer racks:

Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Transfer Racks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer rack.......... a. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by £=98 percent by
weight or to an outlet
concentration <=20 ppmv as organic
HAP or TOC by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices
(except a flare); or

[[Page 63907]]

b. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a flare; or
c. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by venting emissions to a fuel
gas system or process; or
d. Use a vapor balancing system
designed and operated to collect
organic HAP vapors displaced from
tank trucks and railcars during
loading and route the collected HAP
vapors to the storage tank from
which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage
tank connected by a common header.
2. Halogenated Group 1 transfer a. Use a halogen reduction device
rack vent stream for which you after the combustion device to
use a combustion device to reduce emissions of hydrogen halide
control organic HAP emissions. and halogen HAP by £=99
percent by weight, to <=0.45 kg/hr,
or to <=20 ppmv; or
b. Use a halogen reduction device
before the combustion device to
reduce the halogen atom mass
emission rate to <=0.45 kg/hr or to
a concentration <=20 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2480, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your equipment leaks:

Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all . . . And that is part of . . . You must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic HAP a. An MCPU with no i. Comply with the requirements of
service at an existing source. continuous process vents. subpart TT of this part 63 and the
requirements referenced therein; or
ii. Comply with the requirements of
subpart UU of this part 63 and the
requirements referenced therein; or
iii. Comply with the requirements of 40
CFR part 65, subpart F.
b. An MCPU with at least i. Comply with the requirements of
one continuous process subpart UU of this part 63 and the
vent. requirements referenced therein; or
ii. Comply with the requirements of 40
CFR part 65, subpart F.
2. Equipment that is in organic HAP a. Any MCPU................ i. Comply with the requirements of
service at a new source. subpart UU of this part 63 and the
requirements referenced therein; or
ii. Comply with the requirements of 40
CFR part 65, subpart F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2485, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your wastewater streams and liquid
streams in open systems within an MCPU:

Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Wastewater Streams
and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process wastewater stream...... Comply with the requirements in Sec.
Sec. 63.132 through 63.148 and
the requirements referenced
therein, except as specified in
Sec. 63.2485.
2. Maintenance wastewater stream.. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.105 and the requirements
referenced therein, except as
specified in Sec. 63.2485.
3. Liquid streams in an open Comply with the requirements in Sec.
system within an MCPU. 63.149 and the requirements
referenced therein, except as
specified in Sec. 63.2485.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.2485, the partially soluble HAP in
wastewater that are subject to management and treatment requirements in
this subpart FFFF are listed in the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name . . . CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)..... 71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane..................... 79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane......................... 79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride).... 75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane............................. 106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)...... 107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane........................... 78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene........................... 542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol......................... 95954
10. 2-Butanone (MEK)............................. 78933
11. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.......................... 106467

[[Page 63908]]

12. 2-Nitropropane............................... 79469
13. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK).................. 108101
14. Acetaldehyde................................. 75070
15. Acrolein..................................... 107028
16. Acrylonitrile................................ 107131
17. Allyl chloride............................... 107051
18. Benzene...................................... 71432
19. Benzyl chloride.............................. 100447
20. Biphenyl..................................... 92524
21. Bromoform (tribromomethane).................. 75252
22. Bromomethane................................. 74839
23. Butadiene.................................... 106990
24. Carbon disulfide............................. 75150
25. Chlorobenzene................................ 108907
26. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)................ 75003
27. Chloroform................................... 67663
28. Chloromethane................................ 74873
29. Chloroprene.................................. 126998
30. Cumene....................................... 98828
31. Dichloroethyl ether.......................... 111444
32. Dinitrophenol................................ 51285
33. Epichlorohydrin.............................. 106898
34. Ethyl acrylate............................... 140885
35. Ethylbenzene................................. 100414
36. Ethylene oxide............................... 75218
37. Ethylidene dichloride........................ 75343
38. Hexachlorobenzene............................ 118741
39. Hexachlorobutadiene.......................... 87683
40. Hexachloroethane............................. 67721
41. Methyl methacrylate.......................... 80626
42. Methyl-t-butyl ether......................... 1634044
43. Methylene chloride........................... 75092
44. N-hexane..................................... 110543
45. N,N-dimethylaniline.......................... 121697
46. Naphthalene.................................. 91203
47. Phosgene..................................... 75445
48. Propionaldehyde.............................. 123386
49. Propylene oxide.............................. 75569
50. Styrene...................................... 100425
51. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)...... 79345
52. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride).... 56235
53. Toluene...................................... 108883
54. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-).................... 120821
55. Trichloroethylene............................ 79016
56. Trimethylpentane............................. 540841
57. Vinyl acetate................................ 108054
58. Vinyl chloride............................... 75014
59. Xylene (m)................................... 108383
60. Xylene (o)................................... 95476
61. Xylene (p)................................... 106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.2485, the soluble HAP in wastewater that
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart
FFFF are listed in the following table:

Table 9 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name . . . CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetonitrile.................................. 75058
2. Acetophenone.................................. 98862
3. Diethyl sulfate............................... 64675
4. Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)...................... 58147
5. Dimethyl sulfate.............................. 77781
6. Dinitrotoluene (2,4).......................... 121142
7. Dioxane (1,4)................................. 123911
8. Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether................ .....................
9. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate....... .....................
10. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate..... .....................

[[Page 63909]]

11. Isophorone................................... 78591
12. Methanol..................................... 67561
13. Nitrobenzene................................. 98953
14. Toluidine (o-)............................... 95534
15. Triethylamine................................ 121448
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2490, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems:

Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards for Heat
Exchange Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as defined Comply with the requirements of Sec.
in Sec. 63.101. 63.104 and the requirements
referenced therein, except as
specified in Sec. 63.2490.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.2520(a) and (b), you must submit each
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following
table:

Table 11 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Precompliance report....... The information At least 6 months
specified in prior to the
Sec. compliance date; or
63.2520(c). for new sources,
with the application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction.
2. Notification of compliance The information No later than 150
status report. specified in days after the
Sec. compliance date
63.2520(d). specified in Sec.
63.2445.
3. Compliance report.......... The information Semiannually
specified in according to the
Sec. requirements in Sec.
63.2520(e). 63.2520(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.2540, the parts of the General Provisions
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability.......................... Yes.
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions............................ Yes.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Abbreviations................ Yes.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Activities.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction/Reconstruction............ Yes.
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Applicability.......................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).......... Compliance Dates for New and Yes.
Reconstructed sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).............. Notification........................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. [Reserved].............................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Compliance Dates for New and Yes.
Reconstructed Area Sources That Become
Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).......... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).......... [Reserved].............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Yes
Sources That Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(d)................. [Reserved].............................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2).......... Operation & Maintenance................ Yes.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), and Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Plan Yes, except information regarding
(v) through (viii). (SSMP). Group 2 emission points and equipment
leaks is not required in the SSMP, as
specified in Sec. 63.2525(j).
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) Recordkeeping and Reporting During SSM. No, Sec. 63.998(d)(3) and
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G)
specify the recordkeeping requirement
for SSM events, and Sec.
63.2520(e)(4) specifies reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).............. Compliance Except During SSM........... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).......... Methods for Determining Compliance..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).......... Alternative Standard................... Yes.

[[Page 63910]]

Sec. 63.6(h)................. Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards Only for flares for which Method 22
observations are required as part of
a flare compliance assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)......... Compliance Extension................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Presidential Compliance Exemption...... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).......... Performance Test Dates................. Yes, except substitute 150 days for
180 days.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).............. Section 114 Authority.................. Yes, and this paragraph also applies
to flare compliance assessments as
specified under Sec. 63.997(b)(2).
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).............. Notification of Performance Test....... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).............. Notification of Rescheduling........... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(c)................. Quality Assurance/Test Plan............ Yes, except the test plan must be
submitted with the notification of
the performance test if the control
device controls batch process vents.
Sec. 63.7(d)................. Testing Facilities..................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).............. Conditions for Conducting Performance Yes, except that performance tests for
Tests. batch process vents must be conducted
under worst-case conditions as
specified in Sec. 63.2460.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).............. Conditions for Conducting Performance Yes.
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).............. Test Run Duration...................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f)................. Alternative Test Method................ Yes.
Sec. 63.7(g)................. Performance Test Data Analysis......... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(h)................. Waiver of Tests........................ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).............. Applicability of Monitoring Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).............. Performance Specifications............. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. [Reserved].............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Monitoring with Flares................. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).............. Monitoring............................. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).......... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Yes.
Monitoring Systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).............. Monitoring System Operation and Yes.
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........... Routine and Predictable SSM............ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).......... SSM not in SSMP........................ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)......... Compliance with Operation and Yes.
Maintenance Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).......... Monitoring System Installation......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. CMS Requirements....................... No. CMS requirements are specified in
referenced subparts G and SS of this
part 63.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)...... ....................................... Only for the alternative standard, but
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i) does not apply
because the alternative standard does
not require continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. COMS Minimum Procedures................ No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).............. CMS Requirements....................... Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8).......... CMS Requirements....................... Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505. Requirements for CPMS
are specified in referenced subparts
G and SS of this part 63.
Sec. 63.8(d)................. CMS Quality Control.................... Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.8(e)................. CMS Performance Evaluation............. Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505, but Sec.
63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not apply because
the alternative standard does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).......... Alternative Monitoring Method.......... Yes, except you may also request
approval using the precompliance
report.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).............. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.. Only applicable when using CEMS to
demonstrate compliance, including the
alternative standard in Sec.
63.2505.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4).......... Data Reduction......................... Only when using CEMS, including for
the alternative standard in Sec.
63.2505, except that the requirements
for COMS do not apply because subpart
FFFF has no opacity or VE limits, and
Sec. 63.8(g)(2) does not apply
because data reduction requirements
for CEMS are specified in Sec.
63.2450(j).
Sec. 63.8(g)(5).............. Data Reduction......................... No. Requirements for CEMS are
specified in Sec. 63.2450(j).
Requirements for CPMS are specified
in referenced subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Notification Requirements.............. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5).......... Initial Notifications.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c)................. Request for Compliance Extension....... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(d)................. Notification of Special Compliance Yes.
Requirements for New Source.
Sec. 63.9(e)................. Notification of Performance Test....... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(f)................. Notification of VE/Opacity Test........ No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
opacity or VE limits.

[[Page 63911]]

Sec. 63.9(g)................. Additional Notifications When Using CMS Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6).......... Notification of Compliance Status...... Yes, except subpart FFFF has no
opacity or VE limits, and Sec.
63.9(h)(2) does not apply because
Sec. 63.2520(d) specifies the
required contents and due date of the
notification of compliance status
report.
Sec. 63.9(i)................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines...... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Change in Previous Information......... No, Sec. 63.2520(e) specifies
reporting requirements for process
changes.
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Recordkeeping/Reporting................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............. Recordkeeping/Reporting................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii), Records related to SSM................. No, Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(3) and
(iv), (v). 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G)
specify recordkeeping requirements
for periods of SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........ Records related to maintenance of air Yes.
pollution control equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), CMS Records............................ Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS
and (xi). are specified in referenced subparts
G and SS of this part 63.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)... Records................................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........ Records................................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....... Records................................ Only for the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........ Records................................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............. Records................................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)- Records................................ Only for the alternative standard in
(15). Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)......... Records................................ No. Recordkeeping requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.2525.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............. General Reporting Requirements......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............. Report of Performance Test Results..... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations... No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............. Progress Reports....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).......... Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and No, Sec. 63.2520(e)(4) and (5)
Malfunction Reports. specify the SSM reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)......... Immediate SSM Reports.................. No.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)......... Additional CMS Reports................. Only for the alternative standard, but
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not apply
because the alternative standard does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............. Reports................................ No. Reporting requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii).... Reports................................ No. Reporting requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)..... Excess Emissions Reports............... No. Reporting requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)..... Excess Emissions Reports............... No. Reporting requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii).. Excess Emissions Report and Summary No. Reporting requirements are
Report. specified in Sec. 63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............. Reporting COMS data.................... No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting..... Yes.
Sec. 63.11................... Flares................................. Yes.
Sec. 63.12................... Delegation............................. Yes.
Sec. 63.13................... Addresses.............................. Yes.
Sec. 63.14................... Incorporation by Reference............. Yes.
Sec. 63.15................... Availability of Information............ Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-22310 Filed 11-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Local Navigation