![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: November 10, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 217)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60565-60602]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10no97-15]
[[Page 60565]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 63
_______________________________________________________________________
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production; Proposed Rule
[[Page 60566]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5916-5]
RIN-2060-AE83
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the pesticide active ingredient (PAI)
production source category under section 112 of the Clean Air Act as
amended (CAA). The intent of the proposed standard is to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new
facilities that manufacture PAI used in herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides. The proposed standards protect human health and the
environment by reducing HAP emissions to the level corresponding to the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) through the use of
pollution prevention measures and control strategies. The major HAP
emitted by facilities covered by this proposed rule include toluene,
methanol, methyl chloride, and hydrogen chloride (HCl). All of these
pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following
exposure. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce HAP emissions from
existing facilities by 5,150 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (5,680 tons per
year (tons/yr)), a reduction of 76 percent from the baseline emission
level. Because many of these pollutants are also volatile organic
compounds (VOC), which are precursors to ambient ozone, the proposed
rule would aid in the reduction of tropospheric ozone. The emission
reductions achieved by these standards, when combined with the emission
reductions achieved by other similar standards, will achieve the
primary goal of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in 1990, which
is to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
its population.''
The July 16, 1992 source category list included an agricultural
chemicals industry group that contained 10 source categories. Today's
notice groups these 10 agricultural chemicals source categories into
one source category, renames the source category, and adds additional
chemicals to the source category.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 9,
1998.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 1, 1997, a public hearing will be held on
December 10, 1997 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending
the hearing should call Ms. Maria Noell at (919) 541-5607 to verify
that a hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by December 1, 1997 by contacting Ms. Maria
Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5607.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-95-
20, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the
contact person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Comments on the proposed NESHAP may also be submitted
electronically by following the instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Public Hearing. The public hearing, if required, will be held at
the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-20, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room 1500, 1st
Floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the MACT
standard, contact Mr. Lalit Banker at (919) 541-5420, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic filing. Electronic comments can be sent directly to the
EPA at: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket
number [A-95-20]. Electronic comments on this proposed determination
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Regulated entities. Entities potentially regulated are those which
produce as primary intended products PAI's that are used in herbicides,
insecticides, or fungicides and are located at facilities that are
major sources as defined in section 112 of the Act. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... <bullet> Producers of the active
ingredients (as defined under FIFRA
section 2(a)) used in herbicides,
insecticides, or fungicides. Typically,
production of these compounds is
described by the SIC codes 2879 and
2869.
<bullet> Producers of any integral
intermediate used in the onsite
production of an active ingredient used
in a herbicide, insecticide, or
fungicide, provided that 50 percent or
more of the annual production of the
intermediate is used in pesticide active
ingredient processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 63.1360 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
[[Page 60567]]
Basis and Purpose and Supplementary Information Documents. The
contents of this notice are available in Docket No. A-95-20, on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), or from the EPA contact person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The TTN, a
network of electronic bulletin boards developed and operated by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The
service is free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919)
541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem transfer. The TTN may also be
accessed via TELNET at the Internet web site address http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov. For further information, contact the TTN HELP
line at (919) 541-5384, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The basis and purpose document (BPD), containing much of the
rationale for these proposed standards, is also available on the TTN.
The supplementary information document (SID) for the proposed standard,
which contains a compilation of technical memoranda, may be obtained
from the docket or from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to ``Emissions from Pesticide Active Ingredient Production--
Supplementary Information Document'' (located in docket No. A-95-20).
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. List of Source Categories
A. Original Source Categories
B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active Ingredients
C. Single Source Category
D. Change of the Source Category Name
II. Background
A. Summary of Collected Data
B. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing this Rule
C. Regulatory Background
III. Authority for NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
C. Authority for Development of Risk-Based Standards
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Source Categories to be Regulated
B. Pollutants to be Regulated and Associated Environmental and
Health Benefits
C. Affected Sources
D. Format of the Standards
E. Proposed Standards
F. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
G. Monitoring Requirements
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
B. Air Impacts
C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VI. Emissions Averaging
VII. Solicitation of Comments
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Unfunded Mandates
H. Miscellaneous
I. List of Source Categories
Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through promulgation
of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and work
practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for categories of
sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, EPA published an initial list
of major and area source categories to be regulated (57 FR 31576).
Today's notice groups the original agricultural chemicals source
categories into one source category, renames the source category, and
adds additional chemicals to the category.
A. Original Source Categories
Included on the original list were major sources emitting HAP from
10 categories of agricultural chemicals production; in addition to
being an agricultural chemical, each of these compounds is also a PAI.
One source category on the original source category list, butadiene
furfural cotrimer (R-11) production, was moved from the polymers and
resins industry group to this industry group on June 4, 1996 (61 FR
28197). Butadiene furfural cotrimer (R-11) is an insecticide commonly
used for delousing cows. The EPA decided to include butadiene furfural
cotrimer (R-11) production with the agricultural chemicals source
categories because: (1) There are similarities in process operations,
emission characteristics, and control device applicability and costs,
and (2) it is a PAI.
B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active Ingredients
In developing the proposed rule, the EPA identified a number of
other PAI production operations that were not on the initial source
category list. It was determined that production of these compounds is
similar to the production of the compounds in the 11 initial
agricultural chemical source categories. Production of these other
PAI's are being added to the source category list under section 112(c)
of the Act based on information obtained during the gathering of HAP
emission data for this proposed rule. From this information, it was
determined that: (1) There are similarities in process operations,
emission characteristics, control device applicability and costs, and
opportunities for pollution prevention of these PAI's with the listed
agricultural chemicals, and (2) the production of these PAI's occurs at
facilities that are major sources. Like the original agricultural
chemicals, these PAI's are those that are used in herbicides,
insecticides, and fungicides that are registered as end-use products
under section 3 of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
C. Single Source Category
In developing the proposed rule, EPA decided not to set MACT for
each individual PAI chemical but, rather, to aggregate all PAI's
together under the same source category. The PAI's that EPA proposes to
include in this source category are all PAI's that are used to produce
insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide products. Data gathered from the
PAI production industry indicate that the process equipment, emission
characteristics, and applicable control technologies are sufficiently
similar for the broad group of sources that EPA intends to regulate
under a single set of standards. There are no significant differences
in the types of control technologies applicable to controlling
emissions from the various PAI processes. Common HAP control
technologies are applicable to the production operations at all of the
facilities. Based on these factors, EPA concluded that determining MACT
for each individual PAI is not warranted.
The EPA believes that it is technically feasible to regulate
emissions from a variety of PAI processes by a single set of emission
standards. Similar to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), separate
requirements are proposed for process vents, storage tanks, equipment
leaks, and wastewater HAP emission points (often referred to as
planks). The set of standards also establishes different control
requirements based on distinctions in the size of the emission points.
Variability in the characteristics of the production processes for each
[[Page 60568]]
individual PAI chemical may affect the quantity of HAP emissions. This
variability has been addressed by incorporating cutoffs for
uncontrolled emissions in the standards for individual planks.
Several other reasons support the development of a single set of
emission standards for a group of PAI processes. Many of these PAI's
are only produced at a single facility or by a single company. In
addition, data indicate that many of the PAI processes that EPA is
proposing to regulate by this set of standards are collocated within
individual facilities; at some facilities, multiple PAI's are also
produced in the same equipment (i.e., flexible processing equipment).
Facilities with collocated PAI manufacturing could more easily comply
with a single set of emission standards than with individual standards
for each of the collocated processes. Several industry representatives
in the partnership group also expressed interest in a generic
regulation that would specify consistent requirements for a wide range
of processes.
Another justification for developing a single set of emission
standards to regulate production of a variety of PAI's is that it is
more efficient and less costly for EPA to develop a single standard
than to develop separate standards for several individually listed
source categories which have similar emission characteristics and
applicable control technologies. Development of a single set of
standards would avoid the costs associated with having to develop
emission standards for separate source categories of PAI's. A single
set of standards for PAI manufacturing will ensure that process
equipment with comparable HAP emissions and control technologies are
subject to consistent emission control requirements. In addition,
compliance and enforcement activities would be more efficient and less
costly.
D. Change of the Source Category Name
Under today's action, EPA is revising the source category list
published under section 112(c) of the Act to add a source category
called ``Pesticide Active Ingredient Production'' and to subsume the 11
original, separate PAI production source categories into that category,
as well as to include other identified PAI operations which are major
sources of HAP. All 11 agricultural chemicals on the initial source
category list are PAI's; all of the other pesticide chemicals
identified during data gathering and that have been added to the list
are also PAI's. Because these other PAI's have been added to the source
category list and because they have been grouped with the 11
agricultural chemicals, which are also PAI's, the EPA decided that it
is appropriate to change the title of this NESHAP source category.
Effective by this notice, EPA is changing the title of the source
category to ``pesticide active ingredient production.'' This change is
appropriate to avoid confusion regarding the definition of the source
category and to aid in distinguishing the types of air emission sources
addressed by this source category.
II. Background
A. Summary of Collected Data
Data on this industry were collected from 20 major sources that
manufacture PAI's. Production methods used in the manufacture of PAI's
include both batch and continuous operations. Batch operations make up
approximately two-thirds of the processes, but continuous processes
produce more than 50 percent of the annual PAI production. The sizes of
the facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions range from those
that make one active ingredient at the rate of several hundred Mg/yr to
those that produce numerous intermediates and active ingredients on the
scale of tens of thousands Mg/yr. Air emissions of HAP compounds
originate from breathing and withdrawal losses from storage tanks,
venting of process vessels, leaks from piping equipment used to
transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP
from wastewater streams. Data obtained from the 20 major sources show
at least 40 different HAP are emitted from various PAI production
processes. Among the most prevalent are toluene and methanol, which
account for almost 40 percent of all baseline HAP emissions at these 20
plants. Detailed information describing manufacturing processes and
emissions can be found in chapters 3 and 5 of the Basis and Purpose
Document (located in docket No. A-95-20).
As of 1991, over 250 U.S. companies at approximately 329 facilities
(both major and area sources) were producing PAI's. This is the number
of facilities that were registered with EPA under section 7 of FIFRA as
producers of technical material or active ingredients for manufacturing
use only. The number of plants producing active ingredients for use in
herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides may be less than 329 because
the section 7 data base reported some formulated products as active
ingredients and it also included research facilities in the category of
active ingredient manufacturers. Also, some plants may be producing
active ingredients only for use in rodenticides or antimicrobials.
Typically, manufacturing operations covered by this NESHAP are
classified under North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) Codes 325199 and 32532 (i.e., previously known as Standard
Industrial Classification System Codes 2869 and 2879). An estimated 78
facilities are considered to be major sources according to the Act
criteria of having the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of any one
HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP. This estimate is
based on the extrapolation of information from 12 State regulatory
agencies that identified which of the 329 facilities in their States
were major sources of HAP.
The proposed standards would apply to all major sources that
produce any of the PAI's that are used to produce insecticide,
herbicide, or fungicide end-use products. Facilities that are area
sources, facilities that produce only active ingredients that are not
used in insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide products, and facilities
that only formulate or repackage pesticide products would not be
subject to these standards.
B. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule
The Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation's air resources so as to promote the health and welfare and
the productive capacity of its population'' (the Act, section
101(b)(1)). Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP believed to cause
adverse health or environmental effects. Section 112(d) of the Act
requires that emission standards be promulgated for all categories and
subcategories of major sources of these HAP and for many smaller
``area'' sources listed for regulation under section 112(c) in
accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(c). Major
sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to emit at
least 10 tons/yr of any single HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of
HAP.
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA published the initial list of
categories of sources slated for regulation. As noted above, this list
included 10 categories of Agricultural Chemicals Production; with
today's notice, these source categories are combined into a single
category called Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and additional
PAI processes are added to the source category. The statute requires
emissions standards for the listed source categories to be promulgated
between November 1992 and November 2000. On December 3, 1993, the EPA
published a schedule
[[Page 60569]]
for promulgating these standards (58 FR 83841).
In the Act, Congress specified that each standard for major sources
must require the maximum reduction in emissions of HAP that EPA
determines is achievable considering cost, health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. In essence, these MACT standards
would ensure that all major sources of air toxic emissions achieve the
level of control already being achieved by the better controlled and
lower emitting sources in each category. This approach provides
assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic air pollution
will be required to effectively control its emissions.
Available emissions data, collected during development of this
proposed rule, show that pollutants that are listed in section
112(b)(1) of the Act and are emitted in substantial amounts by the PAI
production source category include toluene, methanol, methyl chloride,
and HCl. The PAI production source category also emits small amounts of
other listed pollutants including benzene, benzyl chloride, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, ethylbenzene, ethyl
chloride, ethylene dichloride, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloroethane, hexane, methylene
chloride, tetrachloroethylene, trichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene,
xylenes, acetonitrile, captan, formaldehyde, glycol ethers,
hydroquinone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl
isocyanate, napthalene, phosgene, chlorine, and hydrogen cyanide. Some
of these pollutants have been classified as known, possible, or
probable human carcinogens when inhaled, and all can cause reversible
and irreversible toxic effects following exposure. These effects
include respiratory and skin irritation, neurological disorders (e.g.,
dizziness, headache, and narcosis), effects upon the eye (including
blindness), damage to organ systems (e.g., liver, kidney, and testes),
and in extreme cases, death. These pollutants have the potential to be
reduced by implementation of the proposed emission limits.
The list of HAP in section 112(b) of the Act includes 22 HAP
compounds (or classes of compounds) that have been reported to be
possible endocrine disruptors. Many of these 22 HAP are PAI's, or are
used in the production of PAI's, and, thus, could possibly be emitted
from PAI manufacturing plants. Only one of the 22 HAP compounds was
reported to be emitted from 20 surveyed plants in the source category,
and the quantity emitted was very low relative to the quantity of the
total HAP emissions from the source category. The other HAP that are
possible endocrine disruptors are each produced (or used) by only one
or a small number of facilities, and their vapor pressures tend to be
low relative to the solvents and raw materials used in the PAI
manufacturing processes (the lower the vapor pressure, the less
material that will volatilize). As a result, the HAP that are possible
endocrine disruptors are likely emitted in small quantities, if at all,
relative to the HAP listed above. The EPA is requesting comments and
information on the emission levels of these possible endocrine
disruptors from PAI manufacturing processes.
The Agency is also requesting comments on whether the risk posed by
endocrine disruptors warrants more stringent requirements than those
proposed. Based upon the criteria used in selecting the proposed
regulatory option, the Agency judged that the existing information on
emissions and health effects did not justify the additional cost of
more stringent standards. Therefore, in providing comments, commenters
should (to the extent possible) provide a quantitative risk assessment
to support the need for the adoption of more stringent requirements.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
sources, are based on process and emissions data received from 20 of
the existing facilities known by EPA to be in operation. Regulatory
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor (the minimum control
level required by the Act) were selected when they were judged to be
reasonable, considering cost, nonair impacts, and energy requirements.
The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the
date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time
allowed by the Act. New facilities are required to comply with the
standard upon startup.
Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
affected sources will comply with the standards both initially and over
time. However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the
requirements in the rule. The EPA has also attempted to maintain
consistency with existing regulations by either incorporating text from
existing regulations or referencing the applicable sections.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs,
State environmental agency personnel, and industry participated in the
regulatory development process as MACT partnership members. The
partnership members were given opportunities to review and comment on
the regulation prior to proposal. Industry, regulatory authorities,
environmental groups, and other interested parties will have another
opportunity to comment on the proposed standards and provide additional
information during the public comment period.
C. Regulatory Background
The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Act, which
requires the Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in
section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of this rule is to protect the
public health and the environment by requiring new and existing major
sources to reduce generation of emissions by using pollution prevention
strategies or to control emissions to the level achievable by the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT), taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any nonair quality and
other air quality related health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In 1994, EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks (59 FR 19587). Processes producing
Captafol<SUP></SUP>, Captan<SUP></SUP>, Chlorothalonil, Dacthal, and
Tordon<SUP>TM</SUP> acid that use butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
methylene chloride, or ethylene dichloride as a reactant or process
solvent, are subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks.
The EPA is proposing today to require control of leaking components
that are currently not subject to the Negotiated Regulation for
Equipment Leaks, but that contain HAP and are associated with processes
in this source category.
III. Authority for NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that emit one
or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be regulated by
NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to
develop and publish a list of source categories for which NESHAP
[[Page 60570]]
will be developed; this list was published in the Federal Register on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The Agency must list all known categories
and subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more of the
listed HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any
stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons/yr or
more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.
Under section 112(c)(1) of the Act, List of Source Categories, the
Administrator has the authority to establish additional source
categories as seems appropriate. Ten (revised to 11) categories of
agricultural chemicals were included on the original list. Because the
processes, HAP emissions, control technologies, and control costs for
these 11 agricultural chemicals are similar to the processes, HAP
emissions, control technologies, and control costs for other PAI's, the
Administrator included other PAI's on the source category list and
grouped the agricultural chemicals and the PAI's together into one
source category.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is based on
the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The selection of
MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the emission
reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements for control levels more stringent than the floor
(described below).
The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards can be
no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources or the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)). The
determination of the MACT floor for existing sources under today's rule
is that the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
sources is based on a measure of central tendency, such as the
arithmetic mean, median, or mode.
In establishing the floors, the EPA adopted a different approach in
order to reduce the paperwork burden on the industry. Through
literature reviews, State contacts, and plant visits, EPA identified
companies which appeared to have the best controlled plants and sent
data collection requests only to these companies. In identifying these
companies, EPA also considered the need to include a variety of process
and product types in the survey. Data for the PAI production industry
were collected from facilities that achieve high emissions reductions,
produce a variety of PAI's, use a variety of production processes, and
are major sources. As the standards for existing sources are based on
the best-performing 12 percent of sources, the number of best-
performing sources for this source category is 9 facilities (i.e., 12
percent of 78 facilities). Information from the data collection
requests was received from 20 facilities. The best-performing 9
facilities are included in these 20 surveyed facilities.
C. Authority for Development of Risk-Based Standards
The Act includes an exception to the general statutory requirement
to establish emission standards based on MACT. Section 112(d)(4) of the
Act provides EPA with authority, at its discretion, to develop risk-
based standards for HAP ``for which a health threshold has been
established,'' provided that the standard achieves an ``ample margin of
safety.'' Under this authority, EPA may propose not to regulate HAP
emissions if the results of exposure assessment modeling show exposure
levels to HAP emissions to be below the health threshold value by an
ample margin of safety, and if no significant or widespread adverse
environmental effects from HAP emissions are expected.
The following discussion in today's notice summarizes the Agency's
determination of HCl as a threshold pollutant, an ecological assessment
of HCl, and the data that would have to be provided for EPA to consider
adopting a risk-based approach to regulate HCl emissions from PAI
manufacturing facilities.
Based on negative carcinogenicity data in one animal study, and on
EPA's knowledge of how HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism
of action, the Agency presumptively considers HCl to be a threshold
pollutant. For HCl (and other pollutants that are considered to have a
``threshold of safety'' below which adverse effects are not expected),
information on noncarcinogenic effects must be evaluated to determine
the potential hazards associated with exposure. One approach for
determining the potential hazards of a pollutant is to use its
Inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC). The RfC for HCl is 20
micrograms per cubic meter (<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3</SUP>); this value was
derived from a single animal study.
The emissions standards must also protect against significant and
widespread adverse environmental effects to wildlife, aquatic life, and
other natural resources. Based on a review of published studies, the
Agency concluded that the RfC can reasonably be expected to protect
against widespread adverse effects in animal species, and that effects
on plant tissues and aquatic organisms likely will be local rather than
widespread. The HCl concentrations were more than an order of magnitude
above the RfC in some of the studies in which deleterious effects were
observed; other studies did not report the HCl concentrations.
The Agency has not conducted an exposure assessment for the PAI
manufacturing industry because the data needed in the analysis,
including the identity of some of the 78 estimated affected sources,
are not available. Furthermore, the burden to EPA and the industry of
collecting and analyzing the data may not be warranted given the
relatively small potential reduction in HCl control costs that could
occur. However, the Agency solicits comments on the adequacy,
desirability, and feasibility of developing a risk-based standard for
HCl emissions from PAI manufacturing facilities. For EPA to develop a
risk-based standard for HCl emissions from PAI manufacturing
facilities, the industry would need to provide data for each affected
source. Specifically, the HCl emissions and stack parameters for each
HCl emission point (stack and fugitive sources) at the contiguous
facility (i.e., both PAI and all other processes) for each affected
source would be needed.
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
This section describes the source category and pollutants covered,
defines an affected source, and summarizes the proposed rule
requirements for each emission point. A pollution prevention
alternative is also summarized in this section. For an explanation of
the process and rationale used to select
[[Page 60571]]
these requirements, see chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis and Purpose
Document (located in docket No. A-95-20).
A. Source Categories To Be Regulated
The proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from facilities
that are major sources that produce PAI's for use in insecticide,
herbicide, or fungicide products. The standards would apply to existing
sources as well as new sources.
B. Pollutants To Be Regulated and Associated Environmental and Health
Benefits
Pesticide Active Ingredients production facilities emit an
estimated 6,750 Mg/yr of organic and inorganic HAP. Organic HAP's
include methylene chloride, methanol, and toluene as well as other HAP.
Hydrogen chloride is an inorganic HAP emitted by this industry. The
proposed rule would reduce HAP emissions from PAI facilities by 76
percent. Some of these pollutants are considered to be carcinogenic,
and all can cause toxic health effects following exposure, including
nausea, headaches, and possible reproductive effects. The EPA does
recognize that the degree of adverse effects to human health can range
from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health
effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient
concentration observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle)
which vary significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant
specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the environment,
bioaccumulation, and persistence).
Most of the organic HAP emitted from this industry are classified
as VOC. The proposed emission controls for HAP will reduce non-HAP VOC
emissions as well. Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety
of health and welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions,
together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of
tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a
series of public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity;
eye, nose, and throat irritation; nausea; and aggravation of existing
respiratory disease. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to ambient
ozone include damage to selected commercial timber species and economic
losses for commercially valuable crops such as soybeans and cotton.
Hydrogen chloride is listed under section 112(r) of the CAA. The
intent of section 112(r), Prevention of Accidental Releases, is to
focus on chemicals that pose a significant hazard to the community
should an accident occur, to prevent their accidental release, and to
minimize consequences should a release occur. Hydrogen chloride, along
with the other substances listed under section 112(r)(3), is listed
because it is known to cause, or may be reasonably anticipated to cause
death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the
environment (see 59 FR 4478, January 31, 1994). Sources that handle
hydrogen chloride in greater quantities than the established threshold
quantity under section 112(r)(5) will be subject to the risk management
program requirements under section 112(r)(7) (see 58 FR 54190, October
20, 1993).
In essence, the MACT standards mandated by the CAA will ensure that
all major sources of air toxic emissions achieve the level of control
already being achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting
sources in each category. This approach provides assurance to citizens
that each major source of toxic air pollution will be required to
effectively control its emissions. In addition, the emission reductions
achieved by these proposed standards, when combined with the reductions
achieved by other MACT standards, will contribute to achieving the
primary goal of the CAA, which is to ``protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (the CAA,
section 101(b)(1)).
C. Affected Sources
The affected source for the purpose of this regulation is the
facility-wide collection of emission points; these emission points
include process vents, storage tanks, waste management units and
associated treatment residuals, heat exchange systems, and equipment
components that are associated with PAI manufacturing operations.
New sources occur as a result of reconstructing existing sources,
constructing new ``greenfield'' facilities, or adding PAI manufacturing
operations at a plant site that currently does not produce PAI's.
Additionally, if a facility adds to the PAI manufacturing operations at
a plant site that is an existing affected source, the addition will be
subject to the requirements for new sources provided that the addition
meets the definition of construction in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A of part
63 (General Provisions) and the addition has the potential to emit 10
tons/yr or more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination
of HAP. Otherwise, the added PAI manufacturing operations are
considered part of the existing source and would be subject to existing
source standards.
D. Format of the Standards
The proposed standards for gaseous organic HAP and HCl emissions
from process vents are presented in a combination of percent reduction
and mass limit format. Facilities will have the option of using any
control technology, as long as the HAP reductions or mass limits are
achieved. The format of the proposed standards for storage tanks is a
combination of equipment standard and performance standard--tanks that
must be controlled are required to be fitted with floating roofs or
with add-on devices meeting a percent removal requirement. The proposed
standards for wastewater emission points allow: (1) Several percent
mass removal options, (2) concentration limit, (3) mass limit, or (4)
equipment design and operation formats. The proposed wastewater
standards, and thus the format of the standards, are the same as in the
HON, except that only a percent mass removal option is allowed for
facilities that have total HAP loading greater than a specified cutoff.
Equipment leak standards are in the form of equipment/work practice
standards. Facilities would be required to implement the program
specified in the proposed regulation to achieve compliance with the
standards. The proposed standards for particulate HAP emissions from
bag dumps and product dryers are presented in a concentration format.
Additional information pertaining to the selection of the proposed
standards is provided in Chapter 8 of the Basis and Purpose Document
(located in docket No. A-95-20).
An alternative pollution prevention standard is also being
proposed. This standard can be met in lieu of meeting separate
standards for process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks,
wastewater, bag dumps, and heat exchange systems associated with each
PAI production process. The format for this alternative standard is a
mass reduction in HAP consumption per unit mass of product produced in
the process.
E. Proposed Standards
1. Standards
Table 1 summarizes the proposed standards for process vents,
storage tanks, wastewater, equipment leaks, bag
[[Page 60572]]
dumps and product dryers, and heat exchange systems at existing and new
affected sources. The proposed standards are based on the MACT floor
level of control, except where a more stringent level of control was
determined to be technically feasible at a reasonable cost. Detailed
information describing the approach used to determine the MACT floor
and regulatory alternatives is presented in the Basis and Purpose
Document (located in docket No. A-95-20).
Table 1.--Proposed Standards for PAI Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Applicability Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents...................... Existing:
Processes having uncontrolled organic 90% for organic HAP per process or
HAP emissions <gr-thn-eq>0.15 Mg/yr. <20 ppmv TOC.
Processes having uncontrolled HCl 94% for HCl per process.
emissions <gr-thn-eq>6.8 Mg/yr.
Individual process vents meeting TRE 98% gaseous organic HAP control per
criteria that have gaseous organic vent or <20 ppmv TOC.
HAP emissions controlled to less
than 90% as of proposal date.
New:
Processes having uncontrolled organic 98% for organic HAP per process or
HAP emissions <gr-thn-eq>0.15 Mg/yr. <20 ppmv TOC at control device
outlet.
Processes having uncontrolled HCl 94% for HCl per process.
emissions <gr-thn-eq>6.8 Mg/yr and
<191 Mg/yr.
Processes having uncontrolled HCl 99.9% for HCl per process.
emissions <gr-thn-eq>191 Mg/yr.
Storage tanks...................... Existing: <gr-thn-eq>0.11 Mg/yr
uncontrolled HAP emissions:
<bullet> <gr-thn-eq>38 m<SUP>3 <76 m<SUP>3 41% control per tank.
capacity.
<bullet> <gr-thn-eq>76 m<SUP>3 capacity... 95% control per tank.
New: <gr-thn-eq>0.45 kg/yr 98% control per tank or <20 ppmv TOC
uncontrolled HAP emissions and <gr- at control device outlet.
thn-eq>26 m<SUP>3 capacity.
Wastewater <SUP>a....................... Existing: <gr-thn-eq>10,000 ppmw Reduce concentration of total Table
Table 9 compounds at any flowrate or 9 compounds to <50 ppmw (or other
<gr-thn-eq>1,000 ppmw Table 9 options).
compounds at <gr-thn-eq>10 L/min.
New:
Same criteria as for existing sources Reduce concentration of total Table
9 compounds to <50 ppmw (or other
options).
Total HAP load in wastewater POD 99% reduction of Table 9 compounds
streams <gr-thn-eq>2,100 Mg/yr. from all streams.
Equipment leaks.................... Subpart H............................ Subpart H with minor changes.
Bag dumps and product dryers....... All.................................. Particulate HAP concentration not to
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
Heat exchange systems.............. Each heat exchange system used to Monitoring and leak repair program
cool process equipment in PAI as in HON.
manufacturing operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Table 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
a. Process Vents. The proposed standards would require existing
sources to reduce organic HAP and HCl emissions from process vents.
Specifically, existing sources would be required to reduce organic HAP
emissions by 90 percent from each process where the sum of uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions from all vents in the process is greater than or
equal to 0.15 Mg/yr (330 pounds per year [lb/yr]). Alternatively, the
proposed rule would require that combustion, recovery, or recapture
control devices meet an outlet total organic carbon (TOC) concentration
of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv); the 90 percent reduction
requirement would apply to the sum of uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from all other vents in the process. Additionally, the
proposed rule would require organic HAP emissions from any individual
vent that meets certain annual emissions and flowrate criteria to be
reduced by 98 weight percent or to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv;
the 90 percent requirement would apply to the sum of organic HAP
emissions from all other vents in the process. The proposed standards
would also require existing sources to reduce HCl emissions by 94
percent from each process where the sum of uncontrolled emissions from
all vents in the process is greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5
tons/yr).
New sources would be required to meet various process-based control
levels. Specifically, for each process where the sum of the
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from all vents in the process is
greater than or equal to 0.15 Mg/yr (330 lb/yr), the proposed standards
would require an overall 98 percent reduction in the organic HAP
emissions per process. Alternatively, the proposed standards would
require that combustion, recovery, or recapture devices meet an outlet
TOC concentration of 20 ppmv, and the 98 percent reduction requirement
would apply to the sum of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from all
other vents in the process. The proposed standards would also require a
94 percent reduction of HCl emissions from each process where the sum
of uncontrolled HCl emissions from all vents in the process is greater
than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr) and less than 191 Mg/yr (211
tons/yr). The proposed standards would require new sources to reduce
HCl emissions by 99.9 percent from each process where the sum of
uncontrolled HCl emissions from all vents in the process is greater
than or equal to 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr).
The proposed standards for organic HAP from process vents at
existing sources are based on a regulatory alternative that consists of
the MACT floor level of control for most vents and a more stringent
level of control for vents that meet certain applicability criteria. An
applicability cutoff, based on a linear equation relating vent flowrate
and annual HAP load, is used to determine the vents that have organic
[[Page 60573]]
HAP emissions that must be controlled to the more stringent level of 98
percent. The cost of this alternative above the MACT floor is $2,500/Mg
and was judged to be reasonable. The proposed standards for HCl from
process vents at existing sources are based on the MACT floor level.
The proposed standards for both organic HAP and HCl emissions from
process vents at new sources are based on the MACT floor level for new
sources. For additional information, see chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis
and Purpose Document (located in docket No. A-95-20).
b. Storage Tanks. The proposed standards would require existing
sources to control storage tanks that have a capacity greater than or
equal to 38 cubic meters (m<SUP>3</SUP>) (10,000 gal) and uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions greater than or equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240 lb/yr).
Specifically, the proposed standards would require that organic HAP
emissions be reduced by 41 percent from storage tanks having volumes
greater than or equal to 38 m<SUP>3</SUP> (10,000 gal) and less than 76
m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000 gallons) and by 95 percent from storage tanks
with capacities greater than or equal to 76 m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000
gallons). However, storage tanks greater than or equal to 76
m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000 gallons) that are currently controlled at or
above the floor level (41 percent) would not be required to achieve 95
percent. One of the following control systems can be applied to meet
these requirements:
(1) An internal floating roof with proper seals and fittings;
(2) An external floating roof with proper seals and fittings;
(3) An external floating roof converted to an internal floating
roof with proper seals and fittings; or
(4) A closed vent system with either a 41 percent or a 95 percent
efficient control device, as appropriate.
New sources would be required to reduce uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal to
26 m<SUP>3</SUP> (7,000 gal) and uncontrolled HAP emissions greater
than or equal to 0.45 kg/yr (1.0 lb/yr) by 98 percent or use a
combustion, recovery, or recapture control device that meets an outlet
TOC concentration of 20 ppmv. This requirement can be met with a closed
vent system with a 98 percent efficient control device.
At existing sources, the proposed standards for storage tanks that
have uncontrolled emissions greater than or equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240
lb/yr) and capacities less than 76 m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000 gal) are based
on the MACT floor control level. The proposed standards for storage
tanks at existing sources that have uncontrolled emissions greater than
or equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240 lb/yr) and capacities greater than or equal
to 76 m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000 gal) are based on a regulatory alternative
that is more stringent than the MACT floor. Floating roof technology is
considerably less expensive than add-on controls for storage tanks with
capacities greater than or equal to 76 m<SUP>3</SUP> (20,000 gal);
therefore, there is no additional cost for the regulatory alternative
above the MACT floor. The proposed standards for storage tanks at new
sources are based on the MACT floor level for new sources.
c. Wastewater. The wastewater provisions are similar to the HON
wastewater provisions (subpart G of 40 CFR part 63), with modifications
made for the PAI production industry. The proposed standards would
require existing and new sources to control Group 1 wastewater streams.
Under the proposed standards, existing and new sources would be
required to determine Group 1 status for both process wastewater
streams and maintenance wastewater streams. A wastewater stream is a
Group 1 stream for compounds listed in Table 9 of the appendix to
subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., ``Table 9'' compounds in the
remainder of this discussion) if:
(1) The total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds is
greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate; or
(2) The total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds is
greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and the annual average flowrate is
greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute (L/min) (2.6 gallons per
minute (gal/min)).
The proposed standards would require existing sources with Group 1
wastewater streams for Table 9 compounds:
(1) To reduce the concentration of Table 9 compounds to less than
50 ppmw;
(2) To use a steam stripper with specific design and operating
requirements;
(3) To reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds by at least
99 percent;
(4) To reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds by an amount
equal to or greater than the Fr value in Table 9;
(5) For a source using biotreatment for at least one wastewater
stream that is Group 1 for Table 9 compounds, to achieve a required
mass removal greater than or equal to 95 percent for Table 9 compounds;
or
(6) To treat wastewater streams with permitted RCRA units or by
discharging to a permitted underground injection well.
The proposed standards would require new sources with Group 1
wastewater streams for Table 9 compounds to control Table 9 compounds
to the same level required for existing sources. In addition, new
sources with a total mass flow rate from the source of 2,100 Mg/yr
(2,300 tons/yr) or more of Table 9 compounds would be required to
reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds from all wastewater
streams by 99 percent. This difference from the HON was needed because
the MACT floor for new sources is more stringent than the provisions in
the HON for facilities that exceed this mass flow rate cutoff.
A source is exempted from the wastewater standards if:
(1) The total mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds in Group 1
streams is less than 1 Mg/yr (1.1 tons/yr); or
(2) If the total mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds in untreated
Group 1 wastewater streams and in Group 1 wastewater streams that are
treated to levels less stringent than the levels required by the
standard is less than 1 Mg/yr (1.1 tons/yr).
The proposed standards for wastewater at existing sources are based
on a regulatory alternative more stringent than the MACT floor control
level. The cost of the regulatory alternative was determined to be
$3,070/Mg. This value was judged to be acceptable based on decisions
for previously promulgated part 63 rules for sources with organic HAP
emissions. In addition, this regulatory alternative requires the same
degree of control as the HON. The wastewater streams from PAI units are
similar to those released from HON units, and often occur at the same
plant sites.
The proposed standards for wastewater at new sources with a total
HAP load less than 2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) are based on a
regulatory alternative more stringent than the MACT floor level for new
sources. These proposed standards are the same as the proposed
standards for existing sources; therefore, the cost was judged to be
reasonable. Proposed standards for new sources with a total HAP load
greater than or equal to 2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) are based on the
MACT floor control level for new sources, which, as noted above, is
more stringent than the standards for new sources that have a mass flow
rate below the mass flow rate cutoff. For additional information, see
chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis and Purpose Document (located in docket
No. A-95-20).
[[Page 60574]]
d. Equipment Leaks. The proposed standards would require that new
and existing PAI production sources implement for each process a leak
detection and repair (LDAR) program that is slightly modified from the
program specified in the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40
CFR part 63, subpart H). The LDAR program specified under subpart H
requires specific equipment modifications and work practices that
reduce emissions from equipment leaks. This program was modified to
consider the emissions from receivers and surge control vessels to be
from process vents rather than equipment leaks.
For existing sources, the MACT floor for equipment leaks was
determined to be no control, and the regulatory alternative consisted
of the LDAR program specified under subpart H. The proposed standards
for existing sources are based on the regulatory alternative because
the LDAR program was determined to be technically feasible, and the
cost of $550/Mg was judged to be reasonable. For new sources, the
proposed standards are based on the MACT floor level of control.
The EPA will consider consolidating the equipment leaks program
specified in this subpart (subpart MMM) with the subpart H LDAR program
after promulgation of subpart MMM. The EPA will also consider cross-
referencing the Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) if the CAR is complete
before this rule is promulgated.
e. Bag Dumps and Process Dryers. Under the proposed standards,
particulate HAP emissions from bag dumps and dryers at both new and
existing sources would not be allowed to exceed 0.01 grains per dry
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The standard is based on the MACT floor
for both new and existing sources. For additional information, see
chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis and Purpose Document (located in docket
No. A-95-20).
f. Heat Exchange Systems. Heat exchange systems that cool process
equipment or materials used in PAI manufacturing are also emissions
points subject to the proposed rule. The proposed standards are based
on HON provisions. A source must (1) monitor monthly for leaks in the
cooling water for 6 months and quarterly thereafter, and (2) repair
leaks and test to demonstrate that the leak has been repaired.
2. Alternative Pollution Prevention Standard
For existing sources, the proposed rule also includes a pollution
prevention (P2) alternative standard that meets the requirements of the
MACT standards, and can be implemented in lieu of the requirements
described above. The P2 alternative standard provides a way for
facilities to comply with the MACT standards by reducing overall
consumption of HAP from their processes. The two options that were
developed are described in Table 2 and are discussed below. This
alternative does not apply to HAP that are used as reactants (below the
stoichiometric amount needed to produce the product) or to HAP that are
generated in the process.
Table 2.--Alternative P2 Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option Description of P2 option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. Demonstrate an 85% reduction in the kg
consumption/kg production factor from
a baseline year of 1987.
2.............................. Demonstrate a 50% reduction in the kg
consumption/kg production factor and
additional reduction from add-on
control equivalent to yield 85%
overall reduction in kg consumption/kg
production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first option, an owner or operator can satisfy the MACT
requirements for all process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks,
wastewater, bag dumps, and heat exchange systems associated with an
existing process by demonstrating that the production-indexed
consumption of HAP has decreased by 85 percent from a baseline set at
the first 12-month period for which data are available but no earlier
than the 1987 calendar year. (1987 was the first year industrial
facilities had to report their estimated toxic releases to the EPA
under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986).
Emissions from product dryers are excluded from the P2 option because
reductions in consumption would not affect product emissions. The
production-indexed consumption factor is expressed as kg HAP consumed
per kg product produced (kg consumed/kg produced factor). The numerator
in the kg consumed/kg produced factor is the total consumption of
material, which describes all the different areas where material can be
consumed, either through losses to the environment, consumption in the
process as a reactant, or otherwise destroyed. Consumption, rather than
emissions, is tracked because it can be used as a true measure of
pollution prevention; any decrease in consumption for the same unit of
product generated must involve some type of increase in process
efficiency, including reduction of waste, increased product yield, and
in-process recycling. Because HAP are used generally as raw materials
and solvents in this industry, reductions in consumption can be
generally associated with reductions in emissions to air, water, or
solid waste.
The second option also uses the production-indexed consumption
factor and is also applied to existing processes. It encourages and
allows an owner or operator to supplement reductions achieved with P2
with add-on controls. The EPA believes that such an option will provide
greater flexibility and cost efficiency to the operators who already
may have some add-on controls. An owner or operator would be required
to demonstrate reductions in the kg consumed/kg produced factor of 50
percent via P2 measures, and actual mass emission reductions equivalent
to 35 percent of the kg consumed/kg produced factor would be required
using add-on controls. Thus, the total reduction required by option 2
would be equivalent to or greater than an 85 percent reduction in the
kg consumed/kg produced factor, the same as in option 1.
F. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
1. Proposed Standards
a. Process Vents. To determine compliance with the percent
reduction requirements for gaseous HAP and HCl emissions from PAI
process vents, the owner or operator would be required to quantify the
uncontrolled and controlled gaseous emissions from all process vents to
demonstrate the appropriate overall reduction requirements. For process
vents controlled by a device with an inlet of less than 10 tons/yr of
HAP, the owner or operator can either test or use calculational
methodologies to determine the uncontrolled and controlled emission
rates from individual process vents. For process vents controlled by a
device with an inlet of 10 tons/yr or more of HAP, performance tests
would be required to determine the reduction efficiency of each device.
Because of their cyclic nature, batch operations tend to have variable
emissions. Therefore, performance test provisions were structured to
account for the peak-case emissions. Continuous processes tend to have
more consistent emissions, but for simplicity, the same performance
test provisions are applied to controls for continuous processes. This
approach essentially considers emissions from
[[Page 60575]]
continuous processes to be peak-case at all times. Control devices that
have previously been tested under conditions required by this standard
and condensers are exempt from performance testing.
b. Storage Tanks. For demonstrating compliance with various
requirements, the proposed rule allows the owner or operator to either
conduct performance tests or to document compliance using engineering
calculations. Appropriate compliance and monitoring provisions are
included in the regulation.
c. Wastewater. For demonstrating compliance with the various
requirements, owners and operators have a choice of using a specified
design, conducting performance tests, or documenting engineering
calculations. Appropriate inspection, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements are included in the regulation.
d. Equipment Leaks. To determine compliance with the standard for
equipment leaks, facilities would have to demonstrate that an LDAR
program meeting the requirements of the modified subpart H is in use.
e. Bag Dumps and Product Dryers. To demonstrate compliance with the
particulate HAP emission limit of 0.01 gr/dscf, the owner or operator
would be required to conduct a performance test.
2. Pollution Prevention Alternative Standard
Initial demonstration of compliance with the P2 alternative
standard would be accomplished by documenting yearly quantities of HAP
raw materials and products using available records, including standard
purchasing and accounting records, and calculating the kg consumed/kg
produced values. Procedures are also specified to demonstrate that the
required reductions are achieved by the control devices used to meet
option 2.
G. Monitoring Requirements
1. MACT Emission Standards
Monitoring would be required by the proposed standards to determine
whether a source is in compliance on an ongoing basis. This monitoring
is done either by (1) continuously measuring emission reductions
directly or (2) continuously measuring a site-specific operating
parameter, the value of which is established by the owner or operator
during the initial compliance determination. The operating parameter
value is defined as the minimum or maximum value established for a
control device or process parameter that, if achieved on a daily
average by itself or in combination with one or more other operating
parameter values, determines that the owner or operator is complying
with the applicable emission standards. Except for the bag leak
detectors, these parameters are required to be monitored at 15-minute
intervals throughout the operation of the control device. For a device
controlling streams that, in aggregate, contain less than 1 ton/yr of
HAP, only a site-specific periodic verification that the device is
operating as designed is required to demonstrate continuous compliance.
Owners and operators must determine the most appropriate method of
verification and propose this method to the Agency for approval in the
Precompliance Report, which is due 1 year prior to the compliance date
of the standard.
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator must install a bag
leak detection system for each fabric filter used to control
particulate HAP emissions from bag dumps or product dryers. The bag
leak detection system is required because opacity is not a good
indicator of performance at the low, controlled particulate levels
characteristic of these sources. The bag leak detection system would be
equipped with an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an
increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level is
detected. The proposed rule requires that the monitor provide an output
of relative or absolute particulate emissions. Such a device would
serve as an indicator of the performance of the fabric filter and would
provide an indication of when maintenance of the fabric filter is
needed. An alarm by itself does not indicate noncompliance with the
particulate HAP limit, but would indicate an increase in PM emissions
and trigger an inspection of the fabric filter to determine the cause
of the alarm. The owner or operator would initiate corrective actions
according to procedures submitted with their Notification of Compliance
Status report. The owner or operator would be considered in violation
of the particulate HAP standard upon failure to initiate corrective
actions within 1 hour of the alarm. If the alarm is activated for more
than 5 percent of the total operating time during the 6-month reporting
period, the EPA proposes that the owner or opertor develop and
implement a written quality improvement plan (QIP) consistent with
subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring.
2. Alternative Standard
An owner or operator electing to use the P2 alternative can
demonstrate ongoing compliance by calculating the rolling average of
the kg consumed/kg produced factor for each applicable process or
portions of the process. For continuous processes, the rolling average
is calculated every 30 days, and for batch processes, the rolling
average is calculated every 10 batches. In both cases, the rolling
average is based on data from the previous 12 months. In addition, an
owner or operator electing to use P2 Option 2 would have to monitor the
emission reduction obtained through the use of traditional controls
using the methods described above.
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The owner or operator of any PAI production facility subject to
these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting requirements
outlined in the General Provisions of subpart A to 40 CFR part 63. A
table included in the proposed rule designates which sections of
subpart A apply to the proposed rule. Specific recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for each type of emission point are also
included in the proposed rule.
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
The emission reductions that would be required by this regulation
could be met using one or more of several different techniques. Impacts
were estimated for control scenarios based on traditional control
techniques that were judged to be the most feasible for meeting the
requirements of the proposed standards from a technical and cost
standpoint. Energy, cost, and economic impacts of the P2 alternative
would be equivalent to or lower than the estimated impacts for
traditional controls because it is likely that an owner or operator
would elect to implement only those P2 techniques that have lower
impacts than traditional controls.
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
These NESHAP would affect PAI production facilities that are major
sources in and of themselves, or constitute a portion of a major
source. There are estimated to be approximately 329 existing facilities
manufacturing PAI's, 78 of which were estimated to be major sources for
the purpose of developing these standards and calculating impacts. The
rate of growth for the PAI production industry is
[[Page 60576]]
estimated to be 2 percent per year for the next 5 years.
B. Air Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce HAP emissions from existing
sources by 5,150 Mg/yr (5,680 tons/yr) from the baseline level, a
reduction of 76 percent from baseline, and 93 percent from
uncontrolled. These reductions would also occur if facilities elect to
implement the alternative pollution prevention standard. In addition to
reducing HAP emissions, VOC will also be reduced. This reduction
includes VOC that are HAP and other VOC that are not HAP. Volatile
organic compounds are precursors in the atmospheric reaction with
oxides of nitrogen that generates tropospheric ozone. The amount of VOC
reduction (beyond the HAP portion of the VOC) due to implementation of
the PAI standards cannot be quantified.
C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be
generated from steam stripping wastewater streams. Additionally, no
solid waste is expected to be generated from controls of other emission
points.
The proposed standards would increase wastewater generated from
water scrubbers used to control HCl emissions by an estimated 10.8
million liters per year (2.9 million gallons per year). The volume of
wastewater generated would also increase at plants that choose a water
scrubber to control certain water soluble organic HAP; however, the
increase is expected to be minimal because the use of water scrubbers
for this purpose is expected to be uncommon.
D. Energy Impacts
The proposed standards would require an additional energy usage of
4,880 x 10<SUP>9</SUP> British thermal units per year (Btu/yr).
E. Cost Impacts
The total control cost includes the capital cost to install control
devices (including floating roofs), the costs involved in operating
control devices (energy and operating and maintenance costs), costs
associated with monitoring control devices to ensure compliance, costs
associated with implementing work practices, and the cost savings
generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the form of
emissions. Monitoring costs include the cost to purchase and operate
monitoring devices, as well as reporting and recordkeeping costs
required to demonstrate compliance. Average cost effectiveness, $/Mg of
HAP removed, is also presented as part of cost impacts and is
determined by dividing the annual cost by the annual emission
reduction.
The estimated total capital costs for existing and new sources
would be $70.3 million and $10.4 million, respectively (June 1995
dollars). The total annual costs for control at existing and new
sources are estimated to be approximately $39.0 million and $5.73
million, respectively (June 1995 dollars). The average cost
effectiveness of the standards is estimated to be about $7,600/Mg for
existing sources and $7,700/Mg for new sources. The EPA estimates that
industry's nationwide annual cost burden will average $0.37 million for
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements over the first 3
years following promulgation.
It is expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the
proposed rule would be less than described above because of the
potential to use common control devices, upgrade existing control
devices, use other less expensive control technologies, implement
pollution prevention technologies, or use emissions averaging. Since
the effect of such practices is highly site-specific and data were
unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost compliance practices
could be utilized, it is not possible to quantify the amount by which
actual compliance costs would be reduced. The EPA believes that the
overall control costs and the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
costs will be substantially reduced for the facilities opting to comply
via the P2 option.
F. Economic Impacts
The control costs imposed on producers in the PAI production
industry will increase their cost of production. The effects of the
changes in production costs are evaluated in the ``Economic Impact
Analysis of the Proposed NESHAP for the Production of Pesticide Active
Ingredients.'' The resulting increase in production costs will increase
the market price by less than 1 percent and decrease market output by
less than 1 percent. In addition, the regulation's impact on foreign
competition is relatively small. Social cost incorporates the changes
in welfare to consumers, unaffected producers, and foreign producers
and consumers to the cost of the regulation. These costs were
determined to be negligible for the PAI production industry; therefore,
the total social cost is estimated to be equal to the total control
cost. No plant closures are expected from compliance with this set of
alternatives.
VI. Emissions Averaging
The proposed rule includes provisions that would allow emissions
averaging among process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater within an
existing affected source. New affected sources are not allowed to use
emissions averaging. Under emissions averaging, a system of ``credits''
and ``debits'' is used to determine whether an affected source is
achieving the required emissions reductions. The new sources have
historically been held to a stricter standard than existing sources,
because it is most cost-effective to integrate state-of-the-art
controls into equipment design and to install the technology during the
construction of new sources. One reason for allowing averaging is to
permit existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse
points with varying degrees of control already in place in the most
economically and technically reasonable fashion. This concern does not
apply to new sources because they can and should be designed and
constructed with compliance in mind.
VII. Solicitation of Comments
The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or
the referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on
the basis of available information. The Administrator is specifically
requesting factual information that may support either the approach
taken in the proposed standards or an alternate approach. To receive
proper consideration, documentation or data should be provided. This
section requests comments on specific issues identified during the
development of the standard.
The EPA is requesting comment on the addition of other PAI's to
this source category. The original source category contained 10
agricultural chemicals (i.e., PAI's); during information gathering for
this proposed standard, other PAI's with similar processes, emissions,
and control equipment were identified and added to the source category.
The EPA is requesting comments on the clarity of the approach used
to identify PAI processes subject to the standards. Under FIFRA, all
facilities producing PAI's (and other pesticide products) are required
to be registered. Further, all of these registered pesticide-
[[Page 60577]]
producing establishments are required to report, on EPA form 3540-16,
the amount of each PAI that they produced in the previous year and an
estimate of the amount to be produced in the current year. The
facilities also must classify each PAI in one of 18 product
classification categories. Under today's proposed rule, PAI processes
subject to the standards are those that are used in the production of
insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide products. For the purposes of the
proposed rule, PAI processes that satisfy this definition are those
that are classified as an insecticide, insecticide-fungicide,
fungicide, herbicide, herbicide-fungicide, plant regulator, defoliant,
desiccant, or multi-use active ingredient on form 3540-16. The EPA also
evaluated and rejected other approaches for identifying the processes
that would be subject to the standards. One approach would be to list
each subject PAI process. This approach was rejected because new
products are always being developed and existing products are
discontinued so that a list would soon be out of date. Another option
would be to cover only registered PAI's. Drawbacks of this option are
that PAI's produced only for export need not be registered, the ongoing
reregistration process is likely to result in the cancellation of many
currently registered PAI's in the next few years, and the registration
process does not classify the PAI as an insecticide, herbicide, or
fungicide. The Agency requests comments on the benefits and drawbacks
of these and any other approaches to identify PAI processes subject to
the standards.
The EPA is requesting particulate emissions data from bag dumps and
product dryers in the PAI production industry. The proposed standard
for particulates for bag dumps and product dryers was based on
information for a product dryer from a single facility; this was the
only surveyed facility that dried a PAI that is also a HAP. Other
facilities that manufacture PAI's that have PM HAP emissions from bag
dumps or product dryers may submit available test data or engineering
estimates of the emissions, along with any available information about
the design and operation of the control device.
The EPA is requesting information and data on equipment leak
emissions in the PAI production industry. During the development of
this proposed regulation, various industry representatives commented
that (1) SOCMI emission factors used to estimate emissions from
equipment leaks overestimate the actual emissions, (2) the proposed
equipment leak requirements (HON, subpart H of this part) are too
stringent, i.e., the frequent monitoring requirements associated with
the HON are burdensome, especially because industry believes equipment
components are well-controlled, and (3) the requirements in the
Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) are possible alternatives to the HON
requirements for equipment leak standards. To support their comments,
industry has submitted a summary of test results to EPA to demonstrate
that the industry is already well-controlled with respect to equipment
leaks. The EPA has reviewed these data and believes that the data are
insufficient to support the industry position. The EPA is requesting
additional information and test data [screening data] on this issue.
These data should be collected in accordance with accepted EPA protocol
(Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA Document No. EPA-
453/R-95-017).
The EPA is soliciting comments on several aspects of performance
testing and monitoring. The rule currently requires performance testing
to document efficiencies for control devices that are used to reduce
uncontrolled emissions of 10 tons per year or more. The rule currently
requires that the performance test be conducted under ``peak-case''
conditions and provides for three options--absolute, representative,
and hypothetical peak-case. The EPA is soliciting comments on
appropriate test conditions to be defined for different types of
control devices, especially scrubbers and carbon adsorbers.
The proposed rule provides for parametric monitoring to comply with
the standard and includes specific operating parameters to be
monitored. The EPA is soliciting comments on the use of alternative
parameters without the requirement of prior notification in the
Precompliance report. Parameters other than those specified in the rule
that could be used to demonstrate compliance include: (1) For
condensers, coolant temperature and flow (only with emissions testing),
(2) for scrubbers, measurement of pressure drop, scrubber fluid
composition, or pH, and (3) for carbon adsorbers, adsorption cycle and
regeneration frequency, bed temperature, regeneration stream flow,
periodic test for bed poisoning, and periodic vent testing and/or
predetermined scheduled replacement. The EPA is soliciting comment on
the adequacy of these parameters for demonstrating continuous
compliance with the rule.
An issue raised by industry associated with parametric monitoring
is related to the setting of a parameter based on an initial compliance
determination at conditions which represent the upper limit (with
regard to achievable control) of conditions that will be encountered
during the course of operations. The concern is that the rule
effectively requires a control level that is greater than the standard
because the control devices will presumably achieve higher control on
conditions that are below this upper limit, which may occur frequently
in this industry because of the predominance of batch processes. The
EPA has tried to resolve this issue by allowing owners and operators to
set more than one parameter level for a given control device for
processes or portions of processes not requiring control levels as high
as the peak-case or upper limit. These parametric levels are required
to be defined in advance in the Notification of compliance report. If
more than one level is set, owners and operators must make a
determination of compliance with the standards based on what processes
or emission characteristics are routed to the device at the time in
which a monitoring reading is taken. Additionally, the determination of
an exceedance is based on a maximum of 24 hours worth of data, or 96
15-minute readings, per process. Therefore, readings outside of
acceptable ranges can be averaged in with readings that are within
range and effectively normalized. The EPA believes that the approach
taken offers the industry needed flexibility while preserving the
assurance of continuous compliance.
Currently, the Notification of Compliance report is the compliance
``blueprint'' for implementation of the standard. All information
regarding documentation of the facility's compliance status with regard
to the standard should be included in this report. Process
descriptions, emission estimates, control device performance
documentation, and continuous compliance demonstration strategies,
including monitoring, are to be presented in the report. This report
could be incorporated by reference into the facility's title V permit.
If a change occurred at the facility which required the submittal of
additional information, or if the plant chose to revise procedures that
had been previously documented in the notification, this information
would be submitted in quarterly reports, thus ensuring that the
notification and associated reports would always contain the most
current compliance strategy for the facility. Only changes requiring
site-specific approval, such as the use of a monitoring parameter that
was not
[[Page 60578]]
specifically identified in the standard, would trigger some significant
review action under title V. This would allow the facility enough
flexibility to change processes, operating, and compliance procedures
as necessary without prior approval, if the changes were
straightforward, and would assure that the compliance plan for the
facility would always be current. The EPA is also soliciting comments
on the incorporation by reference of the Notification of Compliance
report into the title V permit, and comments on the types of changes
that should trigger review actions under title V.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standard in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed standards for
PAI production should contact EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement
before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements
should be addressed to the Air Docket Section address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-95-
20.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours
at EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of
this preamble).
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:
1. To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in
the rulemaking process; and
2. To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)]).
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the OMB has
notified the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory
action'' under criterion four of the Executive Order. The EPA has
submitted this action for OMB review. Changes made in response to
suggestions or recommendations from the OMB will be documented and
included in the public record.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State
governments in the development of this rule. These governments will
implement the rule and collect permit fees to offset the resource
burden of implementing the rule. Representatives of four State
governments are members of the MACT partnership group. This partnership
group was consulted throughout the development of this proposed
regulation. Comments from the partnership members were carefully
considered. In addition, all States are encouraged to comment on this
proposed rule during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to
fully consider these comments in the final rulemaking.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1807.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2137); U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460,
or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 1,360 hours per
respondent for the first year and 990 hours for each of the second and
third years, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. An Agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after November 10, 1997, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December
10, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a screening of
potential impacts on small entities, the EPA found that there are three
small companies operating in the PAI production industry. The majority
of facilities are owned by large chemical manufacturers having greater
than 500 employees. In all instances, the average total annual cost for
affected firms is
[[Page 60579]]
less than 1 percent of company-wide revenues. The screening analysis
for this rule is detailed in the Economic Impact Analysis (see Docket
No. A-95-20). Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one 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 proposed standards do not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of, in the
aggregate, $100 million or more to either State, local or Tribal
governments, or to the private sector, nor do the standards
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not
apply to this proposed rule.
H. Miscellaneous
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including health, economic and technical issues, and on the
proposed requirements for testing.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health and environmental risks, any overlap
with other programs, the existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health
data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 27, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et. seq.
2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart MMM to
read as follows:
Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Sec.
63.1360 Applicability.
63.1361 Definitions.
63.1362 Standards.
63.1363 Compliance dates.
63.1364 Test methods and compliance procedures.
63.1365 Monitoring and inspection requirements.
63.1366 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1367 Reporting requirements.
63.1368 Delegation of authority.
Table 1 to Subpart MMM--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart
MMM
Table 2 to Subpart MMM--Proposed Standards for PAI Production
Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Sec. 63.1360 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected source.
Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the affected
source subject to this subpart is the facility-wide collection of
process vents, storage tanks, waste management units, heat exchange
systems, cooling towers, equipment identified in Sec. 63.149, and
equipment components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems) in pesticide active
ingredient (PAI) manufacturing operations at a major source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Pesticide active ingredient
manufacturing operations also include the manufacturing of each
intermediate:
(1) That is integral to a PAI production process; and
(2) For which 50 percent or more of the annual production of the
intermediate is used in any onsite PAI processes.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, a new
source is defined as a source meeting the criteria of paragraph (b)
(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A plant site previously without HAP emissions points that is
part of a major source on which construction of PAI manufacturing
operations commenced after November 10, 1997;
(2) Additions to an existing plant meeting the criteria in
paragraph (g) of this section; or
(3) A reconstructed source that meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 and for which reconstruction commenced
after November 10, 1997.
(c) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply to an owner or operator of an affected source
subject to this subpart, and clarifies specific provisions in subpart A
of this part as necessary for this subpart.
(d) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to:
(1) Research and development facilities;
(2) Emission points in pesticide active ingredient manufacturing
operations that meet the applicability requirements
[[Page 60580]]
under subparts F, G, H, and I of this part;
(3) Emission points in pesticide active ingredient manufacturing
operations that meet the applicability criteria under any other
existing MACT standard; and
(4) The following emission points listed:
(i) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(ii) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(iii) Spills;
(iv) Water from safety showers;
(v) Noncontact steam boiler blowdown and condensate;
(vi) Laundry water;
(vii) Vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that
contain no organic HAP and/or organic HAP as impurities only; and
(viii) Equipment that is intended to operate in organic HAP service
for less than 300 hours during the calendar year.
(e) An owner or operator shall follow the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction provisions specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) For batch processes, the provisions of this subpart shall apply
during startup and shutdown, and periods of malfunction shall be
regulated according to Sec. 63.6 of subpart A of this part.
(2) For continuous processes, startup, shutdown, and malfunction
shall be regulated according to Sec. 63.6 of subpart A of this part.
(f) An owner or operator shall follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section to determine whether a
storage tank is part of the PAI manufacturing operations. If the
storage tank is determined to be part of the PAI manufacturing
operations, and the PAI manufacturing operations are located at a major
source of HAP emissions, then the storage tank is part of the affected
source to which this subpart applies.
(1) If a storage tank is already subject to another subpart of 40
CFR part 63 on November 10, 1997, said storage tank shall belong to the
process unit or manufacturing process subject to the other standard.
(2) The storage tank is part of the PAI manufacturing operations if
either the input to the tank from PAI manufacturing processes,
collectively, is greater than or equal to the input from all other
sources or the output from the tank to PAI manufacturing processes,
collectively, is greater than or equal to the output to all other
sources. If the use varies from year to year, then the use for purposes
of this subpart shall be based on the utilization that occurred during
the year preceding November 10, 1997. This determination shall be
reported as part of an operating permit application or as otherwise
specified by the permitting authority.
(3) Where a storage tank is located in a tank farm (including a
marine tank farm), the provisions in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section shall be used to determine if the storage tank is
considered part of the PAI manufacturing operations.
(i) The storage tank is not part of the PAI manufacturing
operations if all of the PAI manufacturing processes that utilize the
tank have an intervening storage tank. With respect to a PAI
manufacturing process, an intervening storage tank means a storage tank
connected by hard-piping to the PAI manufacturing process and to the
storage tank in the tank farm so that product or raw material entering
or leaving the PAI manufacturing process flows into (or from) the
intervening storage tank and does not flow directly into (or from) the
storage tank in the tank farm.
(ii) For storage tanks that do not meet the provisions of paragraph
(f)(3)(i) of this section, the provisions in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section shall be used to determine if the storage tank is part of the
PAI manufacturing operations.
(5) If the storage tank begins receiving material from (or sending
material to) other manufacturing operations, or ceasing to receive
material from (or send material to) PAI manufacturing operations, or if
the applicability of this subpart has been determined according to the
provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section and there is a
significant change in the use of the storage tank, the owner or
operator shall reevaluate the applicability of this subpart to the
storage tank.
(g) If a facility adds PAI manufacturing operations at a plant
site, the addition shall be subject to the requirements for a new
source in this subpart if the addition meets the criteria in paragraph
(g)(1) and either (g)(2) or (3) of this section.
(1) The addition meets the definition of construction in Sec. 63.2
of subpart A of this part and construction commenced after November 10,
1997; and
(2) The addition has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of
any HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP, unless the
Administrator establishes a lesser quantity at a plant that currently
is an affected source; or
(3) The addition is at a plant site that does not currently produce
PAI's and the plant site meets, or after the addition is constructed
will meet, the definition of a major source in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A
of this part.
(h) An owner or operator may elect to include any of the
intermediates manufacturing operations that are identified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section in the PAI manufacturing
operations subject to this subpart:
(1) The manufacturing of integral intermediates for which less than
50 percent of the intermediate is used in onsite manufacturing of
PAI's.
(2) The manufacturing of isolated intermediates.
Sec. 63.1361 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of
this part, or in this section. If the same term is defined in subpart A
of this part and in this section, it shall have the meaning given in
this section for the purposes of this subpart MMM.
Air pollution control device means equipment installed on a process
vent or storage tank or wastewater treatment exhaust stack or stacks
that reduces the mass of HAP emitted to the air. Examples include
incinerators, carbon adsorption units, condensers, and gas absorbers.
Process condensers are not considered air pollution control devices.
Batch cycle refers to manufacturing a PAI or integral intermediate
from start to finish in a batch unit operation.
Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that may be
associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more
than one batch emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor
resulting from the charging of a vessel with HAP will result in a
discrete emission episode that will last through the duration of the
charge and will have an average flowrate equal to the rate of the
charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will also be another
discrete emission episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded
vessel vapor space. Both emission episodes may occur in the same vessel
or unit operation. There are possibly other emission episodes that may
occur from the vessel or other process equipment, depending on process
operations.
Batch operation or Batch process means a noncontinuous operation
involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into PAI or integral
intermediate manufacturing equipment, and, in general, involves the
emptying of the equipment after the batch operation ceases and prior to
beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and withdrawal of
product do not occur simultaneously in a batch operation.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and
[[Page 60581]]
is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, flow
inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an emission point to
a control device.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as a
flare, incinerator, process heater, or boiler, used for the combustion
of organic HAP vapors.
Consumption means the makeup quantity of HAP materials entering a
process that are not used as reactant. The quantity of material used as
reactant is the theoretical amount needed assuming a 100 percent
stoichiometric conversion. Makeup is the net amount of material that
must be added to the process to replenish losses.
Container, as used in the wastewater provisions, means any portable
waste management unit that has a capacity greater than or equal to 0.1
m<SUP>3</SUP> (3.5 ft<SUP>3</SUP>) in which a material is stored,
transported, treated, or otherwise handled. Examples of containers are
drums, hoses, barrels, tank trucks, barges, dumpsters, tank cars, dump
trucks, and ships.
Continuous process means a process where the inputs and outputs
flow continuously throughout the duration of the process. Continuous
processes are typically steady state.
Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that
completely covers the space between the wall of the storage tank and
the edge of the floating roof. A continuous seal may be a vapor-
mounted, liquid-mounted, or metallic shoe seal.
Controlled emissions means the quantity of HAP components
discharged to the atmosphere from the air pollution control device.
Cover, as used in the wastewater provisions, means a device or
system which is placed on or over a waste management unit containing
wastewater or residuals so that the entire surface area is enclosed and
sealed to minimize air emissions. A cover may have openings necessary
for operation, inspection, and maintenance of the waste management unit
such as access hatches, sampling ports, and gauge wells provided that
each opening is closed and sealed when not in use. Examples of covers
include a fixed roof installed on a wastewater tank, a lid installed on
a container, and an air-supported enclosure installed over a waste
management unit.
External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck type
cover that rests on the liquid surface in a storage tank or waste
management unit with no fixed roof.
FIFRA means the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act.
Fill or filling means the introduction of organic HAP into a
storage tank or the introduction of a wastewater stream or residual
into a waste management unit, but not necessarily to complete capacity.
Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a waste management unit
or storage tank in a stationary manner and that does not move with
fluctuations in liquid level.
Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon
single deck, internal floating cover or covered floating roof, which
rests upon and is supported by the liquid being contained, and is
equipped with a closure seal or seals to close the space between the
roof edge and waste management unit or storage tank wall.
Group 1 process vent means any process vent from a process at an
existing or new affected source for which the uncontrolled emissions
from the sum of all process vents are greater than or equal to 150 kg/
yr (330 lb/yr).
Group 2 process vent means any process vent that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1 process vent.
Group 1 storage tank means a storage tank at an existing affected
source that has uncontrolled emissions greater than or equal to 110 kg/
yr (240 lb/yr) and capacity equal to or greater than 37 m<SUP>3</SUP>
(10,000 gal), or a storage tank at a new affected source that has
uncontrolled emissions greater than or equal to 0.45 kg/yr (1 lb/yr)
and capacity equal to or greater than 26 m<SUP>3</SUP> (7,000 gal).
Group 2 storage tank means a storage tank that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1 storage tank.
Group 1 wastewater stream means wastewater at an existing or new
source that meets the criteria for Group 1 status in Sec. 63.132(c) of
subpart G of this part for Table 9 compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of
this part (as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G of this part).
Group 2 wastewater stream means any wastewater stream that does not
meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Hard-piping means tubing that is manufactured and properly
installed using good engineering judgment and standards, such as ANSI
B31-3.
Individual drain system means the stationary system used to convey
wastewater streams or residuals to a waste management unit. The term
includes hard piping, all process drains and junction boxes, together
with their associated sewer lines and other junction boxes, manholes,
sumps, and lift stations, conveying wastewater streams or residuals. A
segregated stormwater sewer system, which is a drain and collection
system designed and operated for the sole purpose of collecting
rainfall-runoff at a facility, and which is segregated from all other
individual drain systems, is excluded from this definition.
Integral intermediate process means a process manufacturing an
intermediate that is used in on-site production of any PAI's and is not
removed to storage before used to produce the PAI(s).
Intermediate means a compound produced in a chemical reaction that
is further processed or modified in one or more additional chemical
reactions to produce a PAI.
Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the
liquid surface (but not necessarily in complete contact with it) inside
a storage tank or waste management unit that has a permanently affixed
roof.
Isolated Intermediate means any intermediate that is removed from
the manufacturing process for temporary or permanent storage or
transferred to shipping containers.
Junction box means a manhole or access point to a wastewater sewer
line or a lift station.
Liquid-mounted seal means a foam liquid-filled seal mounted in
contact with the liquid between the wall of the storage tank or waste
management unit and the floating roof. The seal is mounted continuously
around the tank or unit.
Metallic shoe seal or mechanical shoe seal means metal sheets that
are held vertically against the wall of the storage tank by springs,
weighted levers, or other mechanisms and is connected to the floating
roof by braces or other means. A flexible coated fabric (envelope)
spans the annular space between the metal sheet and the floating roof.
Pesticide active ingredient manufacturing operations means all of
the processing equipment; storage tanks; waste management units;
components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and associated
equipment such as heat exchange systems that are located at a facility
for the purpose of manufacturing PAI's.
Pesticide active ingredient or PAI means any material that is an
active ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA section 2(a); that is
used to produce an insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end use
pesticide product; and that must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR
part 156 for transfer, sale, or distribution. These materials are
typically described
[[Page 60582]]
by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes 325199
and 32532 (i.e., previously known as Standard Industrial Classification
System Codes 2869 and 2879). These materials are identified by product
classification codes 01, 21, 02, 04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 in block 19 on
EPA form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for Pesticide-Producing
Establishments.
Point of determination (POD) means the point where a wastewater
stream exits the process, storage tank, or equipment components. The
POD may be at the equipment or following the last recovery device.
Note: The regulation in this subpart allows determination of the
characteristics of a wastewater stream (1) at the point of
determination or (2) downstream of the point of determination if
corrections are made for changes in flow rate and annual average
concentration of Table 8 or Table 9 compounds as determined in
Sec. 63.144 of subpart G of this part. Such changes include losses
by air emissions; reduction of annual average concentration or
changes in flow rate by mixing with other water or wastewater
streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual average concentration
by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream to remove or
destroy HAP.
Process means a logical grouping of processing equipment which
collectively function to produce a PAI. For the purpose of this
subpart, process includes all or a combination of reaction, recovery,
separation, purification, or other activity, operation, or manufacture
which are used to produce a PAI, including each integral intermediate.
The physical boundaries of a process are flexible, providing a process
ends with an active ingredient. Solvent recovery operations are
considered part of a process; formulation of pesticide products is not
considered part of the process.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a unit operation. The condenser
must support a vapor-to-liquid phase change for periods of source
equipment operation that are above the boiling or bubble point of
substance(s). Examples of process condensers include distillation
condensers, reflux condensers, process condensers in line prior to the
vacuum source, and process condensers used in stripping or flashing
operations.
Process tank means a tank that is physically located within the
bounds of a process that is used to collect material discharged from a
feedstock storage tank or unit operation within the process and
transfer this material to another unit operation within the process or
a product storage tank. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers
that fit these conditions are considered process tanks.
Process vent means a vent from a unit operation through which a
HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the potential to be, released to
the atmosphere. Examples of process vents include, but are not limited
to, vents on condensers used for product recovery, bottom receivers,
surge control vessels, reactors, filters, centrifuges, process tanks,
and product dryers. Process vents do not include vents on storage tanks
regulated under Sec. 63.1362(c), vents on wastewater emission sources
regulated under Sec. 63.1362(d), pieces of equipment regulated under
Sec. 63.1362(e), or bag dumps.
Product dryer vent means a vent from an atmospheric dryer through
which a gas stream containing gaseous organic HAP, particulate matter
HAP, or both is, or has the potential to be, released to the
atmosphere. Gaseous organic HAP emissions are considered to be process
vent emissions.
Production-indexed HAP consumption factor (HAP factor) is the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total HAP by the annual
production rate, per process.
Production-indexed VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) is the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total VOC by the annual
production rate, per process.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) means any devices and systems
used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature as defined in section
212(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)(A)). A
POTW includes the treatment works, intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other equipment. The
POTW is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(0).
Reactor means a device or vessel in which one or more chemicals or
reactants, other than air, are combined or decomposed in such a way
that their molecular structures are altered and one or more new organic
compounds are formed.
Recapture device means an individual unit of equipment capable of
and used for the purpose of recovering chemicals, but not normally for
use, reuse, or sale. For example, a recapture device may recover
chemicals primarily for disposal. Recapture devices include, but are
not limited to, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of
and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value (i.e., the recovered stream must have a 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. For purposes of the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart, recapture
devices are considered recovery devices.
Research and development facility means research or laboratory
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and
development, where the operations are under the close supervision of
technically trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of
products for commercial sale, except in a de minimis manner.
Residual means any liquid or solid material containing Table 9
compounds (as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G of this part) that is
removed from a wastewater stream by a waste management unit or
treatment process that does not destroy organics (nondestructive unit).
Examples of residuals from nondestructive wastewater management units
are: the organic layer and bottom residue removed by a decanter or
organic-water separator and the overheads from a steam stripper or air
stripper. Examples of materials which are not residuals are: Silt; mud;
leaves; bottoms from a steam stripper or air stripper; and sludges,
ash, or other materials removed from wastewater being treated by
destructive devices such as biological treatment units and
incinerators.
Sewer line means a lateral, trunk line, branch line, or other
conduit including, but not limited to, grates, trenches, etc., used to
convey wastewater streams or residuals to a downstream waste management
unit.
Single-seal system means a floating roof having one continuous seal
that completely covers the space between the wall of the storage tank
and the edge of the floating roof. This seal may be a vapor-mounted,
liquid-mounted, or metallic shoe seal.
Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids that contain one or more HAP. 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;
[[Page 60583]]
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels storing and/or handling material that contains no
organic HAP and/or organic HAP only as impurities;
(4) Wastewater storage tanks; and
(5) Process tanks.
Surface impoundment means a waste management unit which is a
natural topographic depression, manmade excavation, or diked area
formed primarily of earthen materials (although it may be lined with
manmade materials), which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid
wastes or waste containing free liquids. A surface impoundment is used
for the purpose of treating, storing, or disposing of wastewater or
residuals, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface
impoundments are equalization, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and
lagoons.
Treatment process means a specific technique that removes or
destroys the organics in a wastewater or residual stream such as a
steam stripping unit, thin-film evaporation unit, waste incinerator,
biological treatment unit, or any other process applied to wastewater
streams or residuals to comply with Sec. 63.138 of this subpart. Most
treatment processes are conducted in tanks. Treatment processes are a
subset of waste management units.
Uncontrolled HAP emissions means a gas stream containing HAP which
has exited the last recovery device, but which has not yet been
introduced into an air pollution control device to reduce the mass of
HAP in the stream. If the process vent is not routed to an air
pollution control device, uncontrolled emissions are those HAP
emissions released to the atmosphere.
Unit operation means those processing steps that occur within
distinct equipment that are used, among other things, to prepare
reactants, facilitate reactions, separate and purify products, and
recycle materials. Equipment used for these purposes includes but is
not limited to reactors, distillation columns, extraction columns,
absorbers, decanters, dryers, condensers, and filtration equipment.
Vapor-mounted seal means a continuous seal that completely covers
the annular space between the wall, the storage tank or waste
management unit and the edge of the floating roof and is mounted such
that there is a vapor space between the stored liquid and the bottom of
the seal.
Volatile organic compounds are defined in 40 CFR 51.100.
Wastewater means water that:
(1) Contains either:
(i) An annual average concentration of compounds in Table 9 of
subpart G of this part (as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G of this
part) of at least 5 ppmw and has an average flow rate of 0.02 L/min or
greater; or
(ii) An annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds (as
defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G of this part) of at least 10,000
ppmw at any flow rate; and
(2) Is discarded from PAI manufacturing operations at a major
source.
(3) Wastewater is process wastewater or maintenance wastewater.
Waste management unit means the equipment, structures, and/or
devices used to convey, store, treat, or dispose of wastewater streams
or residuals. Examples of waste management units include wastewater
tanks, surface impoundments, individual drain systems, and biological
treatment units. Examples of equipment that may be waste management
units include containers, air flotation units, oil-water separators or
organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such as decanters,
strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. If such equipment is used
for recovery then it is part of a PAI process and is not a waste
management unit.
Wastewater tank means a stationary waste management unit that is
designed to contain an accumulation of wastewater or residuals and is
constructed primarily of nonearthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete,
steel, plastic) which provide structural support. Wastewater tanks used
for flow equalization are included in this definition.
Water seal controls means a seal pot, p-leg trap, or other type of
trap filled with water (e.g., flooded sewers that maintain water levels
adequate to prevent air flow through the system) that creates a water
barrier between the sewer line and the atmosphere. The water level of
the seal must be maintained in the vertical leg of a drain in order to
be considered a water seal.
Sec. 63.1362 Standards.
(a) On and after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1363 of
this subpart, each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall control HAP emissions to the
levels specified in Table 2 of this subpart and paragraphs (b) through
(g) of this section.
(b) Process vents. (1) The owner or operator of an existing source
shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this
section. The owner or operator of a new source shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. Compliance
with this section shall be demonstrated through the applicable test
methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1364(c).
(2) For each process, the owner or operator of an existing source
shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
this section or both paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP emission rate shall not exceed
0.15 Mg/yr (330 lb/yr) from the sum of all process vents within a
process.
(ii) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements
specified in either paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all
process vents within a process, excluding process vents that meet the
criteria for 98 percent control in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this
section, shall be reduced by 90 weight percent or greater, or
(B) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from one or more process
vents within a process shall be controlled by combustion, recovery, or
recapture devices meeting an outlet TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or
less. Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all other
process vents within the process shall be reduced by 90 weight percent
or greater.
(iii) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from each process vent
meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section
shall be reduced by 98 weight percent or greater, or the emissions
shall be controlled by combustion, recovery, or recapture devices
meeting an outlet TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less.
(A) Process vents having a flowrate equal to or less than the
flowrate calculated when multiplying the uncontrolled yearly HAP
emissions, in lb/yr, by 0.02 and subtracting 1,000 according to the
following equation:
FR = 0.02*(HL)-1,000
where:
FR = flowrate, scfm.
HL = yearly uncontrolled HAP emissions, lb/yr.
(B) If the owner or operator can demonstrate that a control device
installed on a process vent subject to the requirements of paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section on or before November 10, 1997 was
designed to reduce inlet emissions of total organic HAP by greater than
or equal to 90 percent but less than 98 percent, then the control
device is required to be operated to
[[Page 60584]]
reduce inlet emissions of total organic HAP by 90 percent or greater.
(3) For each process, the owner or operator of an existing source
shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (b)(3) (i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, including
HCl generated from the combustion of halogenated process vent
emissions, from the sum of all process vents within a process shall not
exceed 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).
(ii) HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, including HCl generated from
combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of all
process vents within a process shall be reduced by 94 percent or
greater.
(4) For each process, the owner or operator of a new source shall
comply with the requirements of either paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or
(iii) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall not exceed 0.15
Mg/yr (330 lb/yr) from the sum of all process vents within a process.
(ii) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all
process vents within a process shall be reduced by 98 weight percent or
greater; or
(iii) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from one or more
process vents within a process shall be controlled by combustion,
recovery, or recapture devices meeting an outlet TOC concentration of
20 ppmv or less. The uncontrolled emissions from the sum of all other
process vents within the process shall be reduced by 98 weight percent
or greater.
(5) For each process, the owner or operator of a new source shall
comply with the requirements of either paragraph (b)(5)(i), (ii), or
(iii) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, including
HCl generated from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions,
from the sum of all process vents within a process shall not exceed 6.8
Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).
(ii) If HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, including HCl generated
from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of
all process vents within a process are greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/
yr (7.5 tons/yr) and less than 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr), these HCl and
Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions shall be reduced by 94 percent.
(iii) If HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, including HCl generated
from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of
all process vents within a process are greater than 191 Mg/yr (211
tons/yr), these HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions shall be reduced by
99.9 percent or greater.
(c) Storage tanks. (1) The owner or operator of a Group 1 storage
tank with a design capacity greater than or equal to 75 m\3\ (20,000
gal) at an existing affected source shall equip the affected storage
tank with a fixed roof and internal floating roof, an external floating
roof, an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof,
or a closed vent system and control device that meets the requirements
of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the
control device shall be designed and operated to reduce inlet emissions
of organic HAP by 95 percent or greater, as demonstrated through the
test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1364(d).
(ii) If the owner or operator can demonstrate that a control device
installed on a storage tank on or before November 10, 1997 is designed
to reduce inlet emissions of organic HAP by greater than 41 percent but
less than 95 percent, then the control device is required to be
operated to reduce inlet emissions of organic HAP by 41 percent or
greater, as demonstrated through the test methods and procedures in
Sec. 63.1364(d).
(2) The owner or operator of a Group 1 storage tank with a design
capacity less than 75 m\3\ (20,000 gal) at an existing affected source
shall equip the affected storage tank with a fixed roof and internal
floating roof, an external floating roof, an external floating roof
converted to an internal floating roof, or a closed vent system and
control device that is designed and operated to reduce emissions of
total organic HAP by 41 percent or greater, as demonstrated through the
test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1364(d).
(3) The owner or operator of a Group 1 storage tank at a new
affected source shall equip the affected storage tank with a closed
vent system and control device that is designed and operated to reduce
emissions by 98 weight percent or to an outlet TOC concentration of 20
ppmv or less, and compliance shall be demonstrated through the test
methods in Sec. 63.1364(b) and the procedures in Sec. 63.1364(d).
(d) Wastewater. The owner or operator of each affected source shall
comply with the requirements of Secs. 63.131 through 63.149 of subpart
G of this part, with the differences noted in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(10) of this section for the purposes of this subpart.
(1) When the determination of equivalence criteria in
Sec. 63.102(b) is referred to in Secs. 63.132, 63.133, and 63.137, the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(g) shall apply.
(2) When the storage tank requirements contained in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 are referred to in Secs. 63.132 through 63.148,
Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 are applicable, with the exception of the
differences noted in paragraphs (d)(2) (i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123, the definition of the term ``storage tank'' in
Sec. 63.1361 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(ii) When December 31, 1992, is referred to in Sec. 63.119,
November 10, 1997, shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(iii) When April 22, 1994 is referred to in Sec. 63.119, [date of
publication of the final rule] shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(iv) The compliance date for storage tanks at affected sources
subject to the provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.1363.
(3) To request approval to monitor alternative parameters, as
referred to in Sec. 63.146(a), the owner or operator shall comply with
the procedures in Sec. 63.8(h), as referred to in
Sec. 63.1367(a)(2)(i), instead of the procedures in Sec. 63.151 (f) or
(g).
(4) When the Notification of Compliance Status requirements
contained in Sec. 63.152(b) are referred to in Secs. 63.146, the
Notification of Compliance Status requirements in Sec. 63.1367(a)(1)(d)
shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(5) When the recordkeeping requirements contained in Sec. 63.152(f)
are referred to in Sec. 63.147(d), the recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.1366(a) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(6) When the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.152(c) are referred to in Secs. 63.146 and 63.147, the Periodic
Report requirements contained in Sec. 63.1367(b) shall apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(7) The term ``process wastewater'' in Secs. 63.132 through 63.149
shall mean ``wastewater'' as defined in Sec. 63.1361 for the purposes
of this subpart.
(8) The term ``Group 1'' in Secs. 63.132 through 63.149 shall have
the meaning as defined in Sec. 63.1361 for both new sources and
existing sources for the purposes of this subpart.
(9) When the total load of Table 9 compounds in the sum of all
process wastewater from PAI manufacturing operations at a new affected
source is 2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) or more, the owner or operator
shall reduce, by removal or destruction, the mass flow rate of all
compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part in all wastewater
[[Page 60585]]
(process and maintenance wastewater) by 99 percent or more.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may treat the wastewater in a unit
identified in and complying with Sec. 63.138(h) of subpart G of this
part. The removal/destruction efficiency shall be determined by the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.145(c) of subpart G of this part, for
noncombustion processes, or Sec. 63.145(d) of subpart G of this part,
for combustion processes.
(10) The compliance date for the affected source subject to the
provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.1363.
(e) Equipment leaks. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, the owner or operator of an affected source shall comply
with the requirements of subpart H of this part to control emissions
from equipment leaks. Compliance shall be demonstrated through the test
methods and procedures in Sec. 63.180 of subpart H of this part.
(2) Standards for surge control vessels and bottom receivers as
described in Sec. 63.170 of this part do not apply. Surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers shall be considered to be process
equipment with process vents. Emissions from these process vents shall
be controlled according to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this
section.
(f) Bag dumps and product dryers. The owner or operator shall
reduce particulate HAP emissions from bag dumps and product dryers to a
concentration not to exceed 0.01 gr/dscf. Gaseous organic HAP emissions
from product dryers shall be controlled in accordance with the
provisions for process vent emissions in paragraph (b) of this section.
(g) Heat exchange system requirements. (1) Unless one or more of
the conditions specified in Sec. 63.104(a) (1) through (6) of subpart F
of this part are met, an owner or operator of an affected source
subject to this subpart shall monitor each heat exchange system that is
used to cool process equipment in PAI manufacturing operations meeting
the conditions of Sec. 63.1360(a) according to the provisions in either
paragraph (g) (2) or (3) of this section. Whenever a leak is detected,
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in paragraph
(g)(4) of this section.
(2) An owner or operator who elects to comply with the requirements
of paragraph (g)(1) of this section by monitoring the cooling water for
the presence of one or more organic HAP or other representative
substances whose presence in cooling water indicates a leak shall
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.104(b) (1) through
(6) of subpart F of this part. The cooling water shall be monitored for
total HAP, total VOC, total organic carbon, one or more speciated HAP
compounds, or other representative substances that would indicate the
presence of a leak in the heat exchange system.
(3) An owner or operator who elects to comply with the requirement
of paragraph (g)(1) of this section by monitoring using a surrogate
indicator of heat exchange system leaks shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(3) (i) through (iii) of this
section. Surrogate indicators that could be used to develop an
acceptable monitoring program are ion specific electrode monitoring,
pH, and conductivity or other representative indicators.
(i) The owner or operator shall prepare and implement a monitoring
plan that documents the procedures that will be used to detect leaks of
process fluids into cooling water. The plan shall include the
information specified in Sec. 63.1365(f)(2).
(ii) If a substantial leak is identified by methods other than
those described in the monitoring plan and the method(s) specified in
the plan could not detect the leak, the owner or operator shall revise
the plan and document the basis for the changes. The owner or operator
shall complete the revisions to the plan no later than 180 days after
discovery of the leak.
(iii) The owner or operator shall maintain, at all times, the
monitoring plan that is currently in use. The current plan shall be
maintained onsite, or shall be accessible from a central location by
computer or other means that provides access within 2 hours after a
request. A superseded plan shall be retained onsite (or shall be
accessible from a central location by computer or other means that
provides access within 2 hours after a request) for at least 6 months
after it is superseded.
(4) If a leak is detected according to the criteria of paragraphs
(g) (2) or (3) of this section, the owner or operator shall comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (g)(4) (i) and (ii) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
(i) The leak shall be repaired as soon as practical but not later
than 45 calendar days after the owner or operator receives results of
monitoring tests indicating a leak. The leak shall be repaired unless
the owner or operator demonstrates that the results are due to a
condition other than a leak.
(ii) Once the leak has been repaired, the owner or operator shall
confirm that the heat exchange system has been repaired within 7
calendar days of the repair or startup, whichever is later.
(5) Delay of repair of heat exchange systems for which leaks have
been detected is allowed under the conditions specified in
Sec. 63.104(e) of subpart F of this part. If an owner or operator
elects to delay repair of heat exchange systems, the owner or operator
shall also comply with the documentation requirements in
Sec. 63.104(e).
(6) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in
Sec. 63.1366(g) and include the information identified in
Sec. 63.1367(e) in reports.
(h) Planned routine maintenance. The specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section for
control devices do not apply during periods of planned routine
maintenance. Maintenance wastewaters meeting the definition of a Group
1 wastewater stream shall be treated in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
(i) Periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device,
during which the control device does not meet the specifications of
paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section, as applicable, shall not
exceed 240 hr/yr.
(j) Pollution prevention. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, an owner or operator may choose to meet the pollution
prevention alternative requirement specified in either paragraph (j)
(2) or (3) of this section for any process, in lieu of the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section.
Compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (j) (2) and (3) of this
section shall be demonstrated through the procedures in
Sec. 63.1364(g).
(1) HAP that are generated in the process shall be controlled
according to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)
of this section.
(2) The production-indexed HAP consumption factor (HAP factor)
shall be reduced by 85 percent from an average baseline established no
earlier than the 1987 calendar year, or the first year thereafter in
which the process was operational and data are available. No increase
in the production-indexed VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) for the
applicable period of demonstration shall occur.
(3) Both requirements specified in paragraph (j)(3) (i) and (ii) of
this section are met.
(i) The HAP factor shall be reduced by 50 percent from an average
baseline established no earlier than the 1987 calendar year, or the
first year thereafter in which the process was operational
[[Page 60586]]
and data are available. No increase in the VOC factor for the
applicable period of demonstration shall occur.
(ii) The total process HAP emissions shall be reduced from an
uncontrolled baseline by an amount, in kg/yr, that, when divided by the
annual production rate, in kg, will yield a value of at least 35
percent of the average baseline HAP factor established in paragraph
(j)(3)(i) of this section. The annual reduction in HAP air emissions
must be due to the use of the following control devices:
(A) Combustion control devices such as incinerators, flares, or
process heaters.
(B) Recovery control devices such as condensers and carbon
adsorbers whose recovered product is destroyed or shipped offsite for
destruction.
(C) Any control device that does not ultimately allow for recycling
of material back to the process.
(D) Any control device for which the owner or operator can
demonstrate that the use of the device in controlling HAP emissions
will have no effect on the HAP factor for the process.
(k) Emissions averaging provisions. Except as provided in
paragraphs (k) (1) through (6) of this section, the owner or operator
of an existing affected facility may choose to comply with the emission
standards in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section by using
emissions averaging procedures specified in Sec. 63.1364(i) for organic
HAP emissions from any storage tank, process, or waste management unit
that is part of an affected source subject to this subpart.
(1) A State may restrict the owner or operator of an existing
source to use only the procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
this section to comply with the emission standards where State
Authorities prohibit averaging of HAP emissions.
(2) Group 1 emission points that are controlled as specified in
paragraphs (k)(2) (i) through (iii) of this section may not be used to
calculate emissions averaging credits, unless the control technology
has been approved for use in a different manner, and a higher nominal
efficiency has been assigned according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.150(i) of subpart G of this part.
(i) Storage tanks with capacity equal to or greater than 76 m\3\
(20,000 gal) controlled with an internal floating roof meeting the
specifications of Sec. 63.119(b) of subpart G of this part, and
external floating roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(c) of
subpart G of this part, an external floating roof converted to an
internal floating meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(d) of
subpart G of this part, or a closed-vent system to a control device
achieving 95 percent reduction in organic HAP emissions.
(ii) Process vents controlled with a combustion, recovery, or
recapture device used to reduce organic HAP emissions by 98 weight
percent or to an outlet TOC concentration of 20 ppmv.
(iii) Wastewater controlled as specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)
(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) With controls specified in Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of
subpart G of this part;
(B) With a steam stripper meeting the specifications of
Sec. 63.138(d) of subpart G of this part, or any of the other
alternative control measures specified in Sec. 63.138 (b), (c), (e),
(f), (g), or (h) of subpart G of this part; and
(C) With a control device to reduce by 95 percent (or to an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv for combustion devices or for noncombustion
devices controlling air emissions from waste management units other
than surface impoundments or containers) the organic HAP emissions in
the vapor streams vented from wastewater tanks, oil-water tanks, oil-
water separators, containers, surface impoundments, individual drain
systems, and treatment processes (including the steam stripper
specified in paragraph (k)(2)(iii)(B) of this section) managing
wastewater.
(3) Maintenance wastewater streams and wastewater streams treated
in biological treatment units may not be included in any averaging
group.
(4) Processes which have been permanently shut down, and storage
tanks permanently taken out of HAP service may not be included in any
averaging group.
(5) Processes, storage tanks, and wastewater streams already
controlled on or before November 15, 1990 may not be used to generate
emissions averaging credits, unless the level of control is increased
after November 15, 1990. In these cases, credit will be allowed only
for the increase in control after November 15, 1990.
(6) Emission points controlled to comply with a State or Federal
rule other than this subpart may not be included in an emissions
averaging group, unless the level of control has been increased after
November 15, 1990, above what is required by the other State or Federal
rule. Only the control above what is required by the other State or
Federal rule will be credited. However, if an emission point has been
used to generate emissions averaging credit in an approved emissions
average, and the point is subsequently made subject to a State or
Federal rule other than this subpart, the point can continue to
generate emissions averaging credit for the purpose of complying with
the previously approved average.
Sec. 63.1363 Compliance dates.
(a) An owner or operator of an existing affected source shall
comply with the provisions of this subpart no later than 3 years after
the effective date of the standard.
(b) An owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source,
for which construction or reconstruction commences after November 10,
1997, shall comply with the provisions of this subpart immediately upon
startup.
Sec. 63.1364 Test methods and compliance procedures.
(a) Emissions testing or engineering evaluations, as specified in
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of this section, are required to
demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.1362 (b), (c), (d), (f) and
(j), respectively, of this subpart.
(b) When testing is conducted to measure emissions from an affected
source, the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10)
of this section shall be used. Compliance tests shall be performed
under conditions specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this section.
(1) EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be
used for sample and velocity traverses.
(2) EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60
shall be used for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
(3) EPA Method 3 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used for
gas analysis.
(4) EPA Method 4 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used for
stack gas moisture.
(5) EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 shall be performed, as
applicable, at least twice during each test period.
(6) Method 25A and/or Methods 18 and 25A, as appropriate, of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used to determine the organic HAP
concentration of air exhaust streams.
(7) The methods in either paragraph (b)(7) (i) or (ii) of this
section shall be used to determine the concentration, in mg/dscm, of
total hydrogen halides and halogens.
(i) EPA Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) Any other method if the method or data has been validated
according to the applicable procedures of Method 301 of appendix A of
this part.
(8) Method 5 shall be used to determine the concentration of
particulate matter HAP in exhaust gas streams from bag dumps and
product dryers.
[[Page 60587]]
(9) Wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance with
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i) through (iii) of subpart G of this part.
(10) For emission streams controlled using condensers, a direct
measurement of condenser outlet gas temperature to be used in
predicting upper concentration limits at saturated conditions is
allowed in lieu of concentration measurements described in paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(11) Test conditions and durations shall be as specified in
paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (v) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) Testing of process vents on equipment operating as part of a
continuous process shall consist of three 1-hour runs. Gas stream
volumetric flow rates shall be measured every 15 minutes during each 1-
hour run. Organic HAP concentration shall be determined from samples
collected in an integrated sample over the duration of each 1-hour test
run, or from grab samples collected simultaneously with the flow rate
measurements (every 15 minutes). If an integrated sample is collected
for laboratory analysis, the sampling rate shall be adjusted
proportionally to reflect variations in flow rate. For continuous gas
streams, the emission rate used to determine compliance shall be the
average emission rate of the three test runs.
(ii) Testing of process vents on equipment where the flow of
gaseous emissions is intermittent (batch operations) shall include
testing for the largest (or peak) HAP emission episode or aggregated
episodes in the batch cycle or cycles (in the event that equipment may
be manifolded and vented through a common stack). Testing shall be
conducted at absolute peak-case conditions, representative peak-case
conditions, or hypothetical peak-case conditions as required by
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. Gas stream volumetric flow rates
shall be measured at 15-minute intervals. Organic HAP or TOC
concentration shall be determined from samples collected in an
integrated sample over the duration of the peak case episode(s), or
from grab samples collected simultaneously with the flow rate
measurements (every 15 minutes). If an integrated sample is collected
for laboratory analysis, the sampling rate shall be adjusted
proportionally to reflect variations in flow rate. The absolute peak-
case, representative peak-case, or hypothetical peak-case conditions
shall be characterized by the criteria presented in paragraphs
(b)(11)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section. In all cases, a site-
specific plan shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval
prior to testing in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A of this
part. The test plan shall include the emissions profile described in
paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section.
(A) Absolute peak-case conditions are defined by any of the
criteria presented in paragraphs (b)(11)(ii)(A)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) The period in which the inlet to the control device will
contain at least 50 percent of the maximum HAP load (in kg) capable of
being vented to the control device over any 8 hour period. An emission
profile as described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section shall be
used to identify the 8-hour period that includes the maximum projected
HAP load.
(2) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control
device will contain the highest HAP mass loading rate, in kg/hr,
capable of being vented to the control device. An emission profile as
described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section shall be used to
identify the 1-hour period of maximum HAP loading.
(3) If a condenser is used as a control device, absolute peak-case
conditions shall represent a 1-hour period of time in which the gas
stream capable of being vented to the condenser will require the
maximum heat removal capacity, in kW, to cool the stream to a
temperature that, upon calculation of HAP concentration, will yield the
required removal efficiency for the process. The calculation of maximum
heat load shall be based on the emission profile described in paragraph
(b)(11)(iii) of this section and a concentration profile that will
allow calculation of sensible and latent heat loads.
(B) Representative peak-case conditions are defined by any of the
criteria presented in paragraphs (b)(11)(ii)(B)(1) and (2) of this
section. Representative peak-case conditions shall include the worst-
case process as well as any other processes that are emitting to the
control device during the test.
(1) A 1-hour period of time that contains the highest HAP mass
loading rate, in kg/hr, from a single process;
(2) If a condenser is used as the control device, the 1-hour period
of time in which the vent from a single process will require the
maximum heat removal capacity, in kW, to cool the stream to a
temperature that, upon calculation of HAP concentration, will yield the
required removal efficiency for the process.
(C) Hypothetical peak-case conditions are simulated test conditions
that, at a minimum, contain the highest total average hourly HAP load
of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to the control device
from the emissions profile described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this
section.
(iii) For batch operations, the owner or operator may choose to
perform tests only during those periods of the peak-case episode(s)
that the owner or operator selects to control as part of achieving the
required emission reduction. The owner or operator shall develop an
emission profile for the vent to the control device, based on either
process knowledge, engineering analyses, or test data collected, to
identify the appropriate test conditions. The emission profile must
include average HAP loading rate (in kg/hr) versus time for all
emission episodes contributing to the vent stack for a period of time
that is sufficient to include all batch cycles venting to the stack.
Examples of information that could constitute process knowledge include
calculations based on material balances, and process stoichiometry.
Previous test results may be used provided the results are still
relevant to the current process vent stream conditions. The average
hourly HAP loading rate may be calculated by first dividing the HAP
emissions from each episode by the duration of each episode, in hours,
and selecting the highest hourly block average.
(iv) For testing of process vents of duration greater than 8 hours,
the owner or operator shall perform a maximum of 8 hours of testing.
The test period must include the one hour period in which the highest
HAP loading rate, in kg/hr, is predicted by the emission profile.
(v) For testing durations of greater than 1 hour, the emission rate
from a single test run may be used to determine compliance. For testing
durations less than or equal to 1 hour, testing shall include three
runs.
(c) Compliance with process vent provisions. An owner or operator
of an affected source shall demonstrate compliance with the process
vent standards in Sec. 63.1362(b) using the procedures described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section,
compliance with the process vent standards in Sec. 63.1362(b) shall be
demonstrated in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) and (4)(i) is demonstrated when the uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions from the sum of all process vents within a
process are less than or equal to 330
[[Page 60588]]
lb/yr. Uncontrolled HAP emissions shall be determined using the
procedures described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(3)(i) and (5)(i) is demonstrated when the uncontrolled
HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions from the sum of all process vents
within a process are less than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).
Compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in Sec. 63.1362(b)(5)(ii)
and (iii) is demonstrated when the uncontrolled HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF>
emissions are greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr) or
greater than or equal to 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr), respectively.
Uncontrolled emissions shall be determined using the procedures
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) Compliance with the organic HAP percent removal efficiency
specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii) is demonstrated when the annual
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all process vents
within a process are reduced by 90 percent. This demonstration shall be
based on controlled HAP emissions determined using the procedures
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and uncontrolled HAP
emissions determined using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section or by controlling the process vents using a device
meeting the criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(iv) Compliance with the HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> percent removal
efficiency specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(3)(ii) and (5)(ii) is
demonstrated when the annual uncontrolled HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF>
emissions from the sum of all process vents within a process are
reduced by 94 percent. Compliance with the HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF>
percent removal efficiency specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(5)(iii) is
demonstrated when the annual HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions from the
sum of all process vents within a process are reduced by 99.9 percent.
This demonstration shall be based on controlled emissions of HCl and
Cl<INF>2</INF> determined using the procedures described in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section and uncontrolled emissions of HCl and
Cl<INF>2</INF> determined using the procedures described in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
(v) Compliance with the organic HAP percent removal efficiency
specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(4)(ii) is demonstrated when the annual
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the use of all process vents
within a process are reduced by 98 percent. This demonstration shall be
based on controlled HAP emissions determined using the procedures
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and uncontrolled HAP
emissions determined using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section or by controlling the process vents using a device
meeting the criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(vi) Compliance with the emission reduction requirement in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii) is demonstrated when the annual uncontrolled
HAP emissions from each process vent meeting the flowrate cutoff
specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(A) are reduced by 98 percent or
greater. This demonstration shall be based on controlled HAP emissions
determined using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section and uncontrolled HAP emissions determined using the procedures
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section or by controlling the
process vents using a device meeting the criteria specified in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(vii) Compliance with the emission reduction requirement in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(B) is demonstrated when the annual uncontrolled
HAP emissions from each process vent meeting the flow rate cutoff of
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(A) are reduced by 90 percent. This
demonstration shall be based on controlled HAP emissions determined
using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and
uncontrolled HAP emissions determined using the procedures described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section or by controlling the process vents
using a device meeting the criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section.
(viii) Compliance with the outlet TOC concentration limit in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii)(B), (2)(iii), and (4)(iii) is demonstrated by
the method specified in paragraph (c)(l)(viii)(A) of this section for
combustion devices or by the method specified in either paragraph
(c)(l)(viii)(B) or (C) of this section for recovery or recapture
devices.
(A) An initial Method 18 performance test shall be conducted. An
operating parameter, as specified by the owner or operator in the
Notification of Compliance Status report, shall be monitored
continuously. The level of the parameter shall be established during
the performance test.
(B) The TOC concentration shall be monitored continuously using an
FID. The organic HAP used as the calibration gas shall be the
predominant HAP in the vent stream.
(C) An initial performance test shall be conducted at absolute
peak-case conditions using Method 25A. An operating parameter shall be
monitored continuously. The value of the parameter shall be established
during the performance test.
(2) An owner or operator of an affected source complying with the
emission limitation required by Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i), (3)(i), (4)(i)
or (5)(i), or the emission reductions specified in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii)(A), (2)(iii), (3)(ii), (4)(ii), (4)(iii),
(5)(ii), or (5)(iii) for each process vent within a process, shall
calculate uncontrolled emissions according to the procedures described
in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) An owner or operator shall determine uncontrolled emissions of
HAP using emission measurements and/or calculations for each batch
emission episode within each unit operation according to the
engineering evaluation methodology in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) through
(F) of this section.
(A) Individual HAP partial pressures in multicomponent systems
shall be determined in accordance with the methods specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) If the components are miscible in one another, use Raoult's law
to calculate the partial pressures;
(2) If the solution is a dilute aqueous mixture, use Henry's law
constants to calculate partial pressures;
(3) If Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate or
available, use experimentally obtained activity coefficients, Henry's
law constants, or solubility data;
(4) If Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate or
available, use experimentally obtained activity coefficients or models
such as the group-contribution models, to predict activity
coefficients;
(5) If Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate or
available, assume the components of the system behave independently and
use the summation of all vapor pressures from the HAP as the total HAP
partial pressure;
(6) Chemical property data can be obtained from standard reference
texts.
(B) Emissions from vapor displacement due to transfer of material
shall be calculated according to equation (1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.000
Where:
E = mass emission rate.
y<INF>i</INF> = saturated mole fraction of HAP in the vapor phase.
V = volume of gas displaced from the vessel.
[[Page 60589]]
R = ideal gas law constant.
T = temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.
P<INF>T</INF> = pressure of the vessel vapor space.
MW = molecular weight of the HAP.
(C) Emissions from purging shall be calculated using Equation 1,
except that for purge flow rates greater than 100 scfm, the mole
fraction of HAP will be assumed to be 25 percent of the saturated
value.
(D) Emissions caused by the heating of a vessel shall be calculated
using the procedures in either paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D)(1), (2), or (3)
of this section, as appropriate.
(1) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are
heated is lower than 50K below the boiling point of the HAP in the
vessel, then emissions shall be calculated using equations (2) through
(5) in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this
section.
(i) The mass of HAP emitted per episode shall be calculated using
equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.001
Where:
E = mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated.
(P<INF>i</INF>)T<INF>n</INF> = partial pressure of each HAP in the
vessel headspace at initial (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperatures.
Pa<INF>1</INF> = initial noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel.
Pa<INF>2</INF> = final noncondensable gas pressure.
MW<INF>HAP</INF> = The average molecular weight of HAP present in the
vessel.
(ii) The moles of noncondensable gas displaced is calculated using
equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.002
Where:
<greek-D><greek-ee> = number of lb-moles of noncondensable gas
displaced.
V = volume of free space in the vessel.
R = ideal gas law constant.
Pa<INF>1</INF> = initial noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel.
Pa<INF>2</INF> = final noncondensable gas pressure.
T<INF>1</INF> = initial temperature of vessel.
T<INF>2</INF> = final temperature of vessel.
(iii) The initial and final pressure of the noncondensable gas in
the vessel shall be calculated according to the equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.003
Where:
Pa<INF>n</INF> = partial pressure of noncondensable gas in the vessel
headspace at initial (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperatures.
P<INF>atm</INF> = atmospheric pressure.
(P<INF>i</INF>)T<INF>n</INF> = partial pressure of each condensable
volatile organic compound (including HAP) in the vessel headspace at
the initial temperature (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperature.
(iv) The average molecular weight of HAP in the displaced gas shall
be calculated using equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.004
where n is the number of different HAP compounds in the emission
stream.
(2) If the vessel contents are heated to a temperature greater than
50K below the boiling point, then emissions from the heating of a
vessel shall be calculated as the sum of the emissions calculated in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For the interval from the initial temperature to the
temperature 50K below the boiling point, emissions shall be calculated
using Equation 2, where T<INF>2</INF> is the temperature 50K below the
boiling point.
(ii) For the interval from the temperature 50K below the boiling
point to the final temperature, emissions shall be calculated as the
summation of emissions for each 5K increment, where the emission for
each increment shall be calculated using Equation 2.
(A) If the final temperature of the heatup is lower than 5K below
the boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment shall
be the final temperature of the heatup, even if the last increment is
less than 5K.
(B) If the final temperature of the heatup is higher than 5K below
the boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment shall
be the temperature 5K below the boiling point, even if the last
increment is less than 5K.
(C) If the vessel contents are heated to the boiling point and the
vessel is not operating with a process condenser, the final temperature
for the final increment shall be the temperature 5K below the boiling
point, even if the last increment is less than 5K.
(3) If the vessel is operating with a process condenser, and the
vessel contents are heated to the boiling point, the primary condenser
is considered part of the process. Emissions shall be calculated as the
sum of Equation 2, which calculates emissions due to heating the vessel
contents to the temperature of the gas exiting the condenser, and
Equation 1, which calculates emissions due to the displacement of the
remaining saturated noncondensable gas in the vessel. The final
temperature in Equation 2 shall be set equal to the exit gas
temperature of the process condenser. In Equation 1, V shall be set
equal to the free space volume, and T<INF>2</INF> shall be set equal to
the condenser exit gas temperature.
(E) Emissions from depressurization shall be calculated using the
procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(E)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The moles of HAP vapor initially in the vessel are calculated
using the ideal gas law in equation 6:
[[Page 60590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.005
Where:
Y<INF>HAP</INF> = mole fraction of HAP (the sum of the individual HAP
fractions, <greek-S>Yi).
V = free volume in the vessel being depressurized.
P<INF>1</INF> = initial vessel pressure.
R = gas constant.
T = vessel temperature, absolute units.
(2) The moles of noncondensable gas present initially in the vessel
are calculated using equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.006
Where:
V = free volume in the vessel being depressurized.
P<INF>nc</INF><INF>1</INF> = initial partial pressure of the
noncondensable gas, P<INF>1</INF>--<greek-S>P<INF>i</INF>.
R = gas law constant, K.
T = temperature, absolute units.
(3) The moles of noncondensable gas present at the end of
depressurization are calculated using Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.007
Where:
V = free volume in the vessel being depressurized.
P<INF>nc2</INF> = final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas,
P<INF>2</INF>-<greek-S> X<INF>i</INF> P<INF>i</INF>.
R = gas law constant.
T = temperature, absolute.
(4) The moles of HAP emitted during the depressurization are
calculated by taking an approximation of the average ratio of moles of
HAP to moles of noncondensable and multiplying by the total moles of
noncondensables released during the depressurization using Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.008
Where:
N<INF>HAP</INF> = moles of HAP emitted.
(5) The moles of HAP emitted can be converted to a mass rate using
Equation 10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.009
Where:
Er<INF>HAP</INF> = emission rate of the HAP.
MW<INF>HAP</INF> = molecular weight of the HAP.
t = time of the depressurization.
(F) Emissions from vacuum systems may be calculated if the air
leakage rate is known or can be approximated, using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.010
Where:
E<INF>r</INF> = rate of HAP emission, in lb/hr.
P<INF>system</INF> = absolute pressure of receiving vessel or
ejector outlet conditions, if there is no receiver.
P<INF>i</INF> = vapor pressure of the HAP at the receiver
temperature, in mmHg.
La = total air leak rate in the system, lb/hr.
29 = molecular weight of air, lb/lbmole.
(ii) For emission episodes in which an owner or operator can
demonstrate that the methods in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section are
not appropriate according to the criteria specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner or operator shall calculate
uncontrolled emissions by conducting an engineering assessment which
includes, but is not limited to, the information and procedures
described in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section:
(A) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the process unit.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, HAP emission rate, concentration, or other
relevant parameter specified or implied within a permit limit
applicable to the process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to
estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations;
(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment
design such as pump or blower capacities; and
(3) Estimation of HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions.
(E) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering
assessment shall be documented in accordance with Sec. 63.1366(b). Data
or other information supporting a finding that the emissions estimation
equations are inappropriate shall be reported in the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(iii) The emissions estimation equations in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section shall be considered inappropriate for estimating emissions
for a given batch emissions episode if one or more of the criteria in
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are met.
(A) Previous test data are available that show a greater than 20
percent discrepancy between the test value and the estimated value.
(B) The owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator
through any other means that the emissions estimation equations are not
appropriate for a given batch emissions episode.
(3) An owner or operator shall determine controlled emissions using
emission measurements and/or calculations for each process vent using
the control efficiency calculated for each device that controls process
vents with total HAP emissions of less than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr),
before control, according to the design evaluation described in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, or using the emission estimation
equations described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, as
appropriate. An owner or operator shall determine controlled emissions
for each process vent using the control efficiency determined for each
device that controls process vents with total HAP emissions of greater
than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr), before control, by conducting a
performance test on the control device as described in paragraphs
(c)(3)(ii) through (iv) of this section, or by using the results of a
previous performance test as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section. An owner or operator is not required to conduct performance
tests for devices described in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this
section that control total emissions of greater than 10 tons/yr, before
control.
(i) The design evaluation shall include documentation demonstrating
that the control device being used achieves the required control
efficiency during the emission episodes in which it is functioning in
reducing emissions. This documentation shall include a description of
the gas stream which enters the control device, including flow and HAP
concentration, and the information specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A)
through (G) of this section, as applicable.
(A) If the control device receives vapors, gases or liquids, other
than fuels, from emission points other than storage tanks subject to
this subpart, the efficiency demonstration shall include consideration
of all vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the
control device.
(B) If an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time
of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 deg.C is used to meet
any of the emission reduction requirements specified in
Sec. 63.1362(c), documentation that those conditions exist is
sufficient
[[Page 60591]]
to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(C) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section,
for thermal incinerators, the design evaluation shall include the
autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, the flow rate of the
organic HAP emission stream, the combustion temperature, and the
residence time at the combustion temperature.
(D) For carbon adsorbers, the design evaluation shall include the
affinity of the organic HAP vapors for carbon, the amount of carbon in
each bed, the number of beds, the humidity of the feed gases, the
temperature of the feed gases, the flow rate of the organic HAP
emission stream, the desorption schedule, the regeneration stream
pressure or temperature, and the flow rate of the regeneration stream.
For vacuum desorption, pressure drop shall be included.
(E) For condensers, the design evaluation shall include the final
temperature of the organic HAP vapors, the type of condenser, and the
design flow rate of the organic HAP emission stream.
(F) For gas absorbers, the design evaluation shall include the flow
rate of the emission stream, the type of solvent, and solvent flow
rate, pH of the inlet solvent, and the design of the absorber.
(G) For fabric filters, the design evaluation shall include the
pressure drop through the device, and the net gas-to-cloth ratio.
(ii) Except for control devices that meet an outlet TOC
concentration of 20 ppmv, the performance test shall be conducted by
performing emission testing on the inlet and outlet of the control
device following the test methods and procedures of paragraph (b) of
this section. For control devices that meet an outlet TOC concentration
of 20 ppmv, the performance testing shall be conducted by performing
emission testing on the outlet of the control device following the test
methods and procedures of paragraph (b) of this section. Each owner or
operator seeking to demonstrate that the outlet stream from a
combustion, recovery, or recapture device has a TOC concentration below
20 ppmv shall calculate the concentration according to the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The TOC concentration (C<INF>TOC</INF>) is the sum of the
concentrations of the individual components and shall be computed for
each run using equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.011
Where:
C<INF>TOC</INF> = concentration of TOC, dry basis, ppmv.
C<INF>ji</INF> = concentration of individual component j in sample i,
dry basis, ppmv.
n = number of individual components in the sample.
x = number of samples in the sample run.
(B) The concentration of TOC shall be corrected to 3 percent
oxygen. The integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used to determine the oxygen
concentration (percent O2<INF>d</INF>) that is used in the TOC
concentration correction factor calculation. The samples shall be taken
during the same time that the TOC samples are taken. The concentration
corrected to 3 percent oxygen (C<INF>c</INF>) shall be computed using
Equation 13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.012
Where:
C<INF>c</INF> = concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry
basis, ppmv.
C<INF>m</INF> = concentration of TOC, dry basis, ppmv.
%O<INF>2d</INF> = concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by
volume.
(iii) Performance testing shall be conducted under the conditions
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(B) through (D) of
this section, the owner or operator shall test over absolute or
hypothetical peak-case conditions for all control devices.
(B) For thermal incinerators, the owner or operator may also choose
to test over representative peak-case conditions; however, if the owner
or operator chooses to test over representative peak-case conditions,
the maximum allowable vent stream flowrate into the thermal incinerator
is restricted to the level for which it was designed. The design basis
of the incinerator shall be included as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(C) For carbon adsorbers, the owner or operator may also choose to
test over representative peak-case conditions.
(D) For wet scrubbers, the owner or operator may also choose to
test over representative peak-case conditions. The results of the
performance test shall be used to calibrate or validate the results of
validated models used to establish the operating parameter values.
(iv) The owner or operator may elect to conduct more than one
performance test on the control device for the purpose of establishing
operating conditions associated with a range of achievable control
efficiencies.
(4) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test when a control device specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through
(v) of this section is used to comply with the organic HAP emission
reductions required by Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (2)(iii), or (4)(ii).
Emissions from these devices are considered in compliance with the
reductions required by Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (2)(iii), and (4)(ii).
(i) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of
44 megawatts or greater.
(ii) A boiler or process heater where the vent stream is introduced
with the primary fuel or is used as the primary fuel.
(iii) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which
the owner or operator:
(A) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, or
(B) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
(iv) A hazardous waste incinerator for which the owner or operator
has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or has certified
compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 265,
subpart O.
(v) A flare that complies with the provisions in Sec. 63.11(b) of
subpart A of this part.
(5) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test for any of the control systems described in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) Any control device for which a previous performance test was
conducted, provided the test was conducted using the same procedures
specified in Sec. 63.1364(b) of this subpart over conditions typical of
the appropriate worst-case, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) of
this section. The results of the previous performance test shall be
used to demonstrate compliance.
(ii) A condenser system that is equipped with a temperature sensor
and recorder, such that the condenser exit gas temperature can be
measured at 15-minute intervals when the condenser is
[[Page 60592]]
functioning in cooling a vent stream. The condenser exit gas
temperature shall be used to calculate removal efficiency of the
condenser in demonstrating compliance.
(d) Compliance with storage tank provisions. The owner or operator
of an affected storage tank shall demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1362(c)(1) and (2), as applicable, by fulfilling the
requirements of paragraph (d)(1) and either paragraph (d)(2), (3), or
(4) of this section. The owner or operator of an affected storage tank
shall demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1362(c)(3) by fulfilling the
requirements of paragraph (d)(1) and either paragraph (d)(2), (3), or
(5) of this section.
(1) To determine the Group 1 status of a tank, the owner or
operator shall determine the uncontrolled emissions using the methods
described in American Petroleum Institute Publication 2518, Evaporative
Loss From Fixed-Roof Tanks (incorporated by reference as specified in
Sec. 63.14 of subpart A of this part).
(2) For each Group 1 storage tank, the owner or operator shall
compute the mass rate of total organic HAP (E<INF>I</INF>,
E<INF>O</INF>) to demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction
requirement of Sec. 63.1362(c)(1), (2) or (3).
(i) Equations 14 and 15 shall be used:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.014
Where:
C<INF>iJ</INF>, C<INF>OJ</INF>=concentration of sample component j of
the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, dry basis, ppmv.
E<INF>i</INF>, E<INF>O</INF>=mass rate of total organic HAP at the
inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, kg/hr.
M<INF>ij</INF>, M<INF>oj</INF>=molecular weight of sample component j
of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, g/gmole.
Q<INF>i</INF>, Q<INF>o</INF>=flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and
outlet of the control device, respectively, dscmm.
K<INF>2</INF>=constant, 2.494 x 10<SUP>-6</SUP> (parts per
million)<SUP>-1</SUP> (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/
gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
(ii) The percent reduction in total organic HAP shall be calculated
using equation 16:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.015
Where:
R=control efficiency of control device, percent.
E<INF>i</INF>=mass rate of total organic HAP at the inlet to the
control device as calculated under paragraph (d)(l)(i) of this section,
kilograms organic HAP per hour.
E<INF>o</INF>=mass rate of total organic HAP at the outlet of the
control device, as calculated under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this
section, kilograms organic HAP per hour.
(iii) A performance test is not required to be conducted if the
control device used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(c) (storage tank
provisions) is also used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(b) (process vent
provisions), and compliance with Sec. 63.1362(b) has been demonstrated
in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iv) A performance test is not required if the control device meets
any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(4) or (5) of this
section.
(3) To demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction
requirement of Sec. 63.1362(c)(1), (2) or (3), a design evaluation
shall be prepared. The design evaluation shall include documentation
showing that the control device being used achieves the required
control efficiency during reasonably expected maximum filling rate.
This documentation shall include a description of the gas stream which
enters the control device, including flow and organic HAP content under
varying liquid level conditions, and the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section, as applicable.
(4) If the owner or operator of an affected source chooses to
comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1362(c)(1) or (2) by installing a
floating roof, the owner or operator shall comply with the procedures
described in Sec. 63.119(b), (c), or (d) of subpart G of this part and
the procedures described in Sec. 63.120 of subpart G of this part, with
the differences specified in Sec. 63.1362(d)(2)(i) through (iv).
(5) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
section, compliance with the concentration requirement of
Sec. 63.1362(c)(3) shall be demonstrated by determining the outlet
concentration of organic HAP using the applicable test methods
described in paragraph (b) of this section. If a combustion control
device is used, the organic HAP concentration shall be corrected to 3
percent oxygen according to the procedures specified in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(i) A performance test is not required if the conditions described
in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section apply.
(ii) A performance test is not required if the control device meets
any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of
this section.
(iii) A performance test is not required for any control device for
which a previous test was conducted, provided the test was conducted
using the same procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(iv) A performance test is not required for a condenser system
operated in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section.
(e) Compliance with wastewater provisions. An owner or operator
shall demonstrate compliance with the wastewater requirements by
complying with the provisions in Secs. 63.131 through 63.149, except
that the owner or operator need not comply with the requirement to
determine visible emissions that is specified in Sec. 63.145(j)(1).
(f) Compliance with the bag dump and product dryer provisions.
Compliance with the particulate HAP concentration limits specified in
Sec. 63.1362(f) is demonstrated when the concentration of particulate
HAP is less than 0.01 gr/dscf, as measured or estimated using one of
the procedures described in paragraph (f) (1) or (2) of this section.
(1) The concentration of particulate HAP shall be measured using
the method described in paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
(2) The concentration of particulate HAP shall be calculated based
on knowledge of the process. The owner or operator shall provide
sufficient information to document the concentration. An example of
information that could constitute such knowledge include previous test
results, provided the results are still representative of current
operating practices at the process unit.
(g) Pollution prevention alternative standard. The owner or
operator shall demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1362(j) using the
procedures described in either paragraph (g) (1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) Compliance with Sec. 63.1362(j)(2) is demonstrated when the
annual HAP factor is reduced to a value equal to or less than 15
percent of the baseline HAP factor, and the annual VOC factor is equal
to or less than the baseline VOC factor. Factors shall be calculated in
accordance with the procedures
[[Page 60593]]
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The baseline HAP and VOC factors shall be calculated by
dividing the consumption of total HAP and total VOC by the production
rate, per process, for the first 12-month period for which data are
available, to begin no earlier than January 1, 1987.
(ii) The annual HAP and VOC factors shall be calculated in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) (A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) The consumption of both total HAP and total VOC shall be
divided by the production rate, per process, for 12-month periods at
the frequency specified in either paragraph (g)(1)(ii) (B) or (C) of
this section, as applicable.
(B) For continuous processes, the annual factors shall be
calculated every 30 days for the 12-month period preceding the 30th day
(annual rolling average calculated every 30 days).
(C) For batch processes, the annual factors shall be calculated
every 10 batches for the 12-month period preceding the 10th batch
(annual rolling average calculated every 10 batches).
(2) Compliance with Sec. 63.1362(j)(3) is demonstrated when the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(2) (i) through (iv) of this section are
met.
(i) The annual HAP factor is reduced to a value equal to or less
than 50 percent of the baseline HAP factor, and the annual VOC factor
is equal to or less than the baseline VOC factor. Factors shall be
calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(ii) The yearly reduction, in kg HAP/yr, associated with add-on
controls that meet the criteria of Sec. 63.1362(j)(3)(ii) (A) through
(D), is equal to or greater than the mass of HAP calculated using
equation 17:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.016
Where:
[kg/kg]<INF>b</INF> = the baseline HAP factor, kg HAP consumed/kg
product.
[kg produced]<INF>a</INF> = the annual production rate, kg/yr.
[kg reduced]<INF>a</INF> = the annual HAP emissions reduction required
by add-on controls, kg/yr.
(iii) Demonstration that the criteria in Secs. 63.1362(j)(3)(ii)
(A) through (D) are met shall be accomplished through a description of
the control device and of the material streams entering and exiting the
control device.
(iv) The annual reduction achieved by the add-on control shall be
quantified using the methods described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(h) Planned maintenance. The owner or operator shall demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(b), and (c) by
including in each Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.1367 the periods
of planned routine maintenance specified by date and time (planned
routine maintenance of a control device, during which the control
device does not meet the specifications of Sec. 63.1362, as applicable,
shall not exceed 240 hours per year).
(i) Compliance with emissions averaging provisions. An owner or
operator shall demonstrate compliance with the emissions averaging
provisions of Sec. 63.1362(k) by fulfilling the requirements of
paragraphs (i)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall develop and submit for approval an
Implementation Plan containing all the information required in
Sec. 63.1366(f). The Implementation Plan shall be submitted 18 months
prior to the compliance date of the standard. The Administrator shall
have 60 days to approve or disapprove the emissions averaging plan
after which time the plan shall be considered approved. The plan shall
be considered approved if the Administrator either approves the plan in
writing, or fails to disapprove the plan in writing. The 60 day period
shall begin when the Administrator receives the request. If the request
is denied, the owner or operator must still be in compliance with the
standard by the compliance date.
(2) For all points included in an emissions average, the owner or
operator shall comply with the procedures that are specified in
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Calculate and record monthly debits for all Group 1 emission
points that are controlled to a level less stringent than the standard
for those emission points. Equations in paragraph (i)(5) of this
section shall be used to calculate debits.
(ii) Calculate and record monthly credits for all Group 1 and Group
2 emission points that are overcontrolled to compensate for the debits.
Equations in paragraph (i)(6) of this section shall be used to
calculate credits. All process vent, storage tank, and wastewater
emission points except those specified in Sec. 63.1362(k)(1) through
(6) may be included in the credit calculation.
(iii) Demonstrate that annual credits calculated according to
paragraph (i)(6) of this section are greater than or equal to debits
calculated according to paragraph (i)(5) of this section for the same
annual compliance period. The initial demonstration in the
Implementation Plan or operating permit application that credit-
generating emission points will be capable of generating sufficient
credits to offset the debit-generating emission points shall be made
under representative operating conditions. After the compliance date,
actual operating data shall be used for all debit and credit
calculations.
(iv) Demonstrate that debits calculated for a quarterly (3-month)
period according to paragraph (i)(5) of this section are not more than
1.30 times the credits for the same period calculated according to
paragraph (i)(6) of this section. Compliance for the quarter shall be
determined based on the ratio of credits and debits from that quarter,
with 30 percent more debits than credits allowed on a quarterly basis.
(v) Record and report quarterly and annual credits and debits as
required in Secs. 63.1366(f) and 63.1367(d).
(3) Credits and debits shall not include emissions during periods
of malfunction. Credits and debits shall not include periods of startup
and shutdown for continuous processes.
(4) During periods of monitoring excursions credits and debits
shall be adjusted as specified in paragraphs (i)(4) (i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) No credits would be assigned to the credit-generating emission
point.
(ii) Maximum debits would be assigned to the debit-generating
emission point.
(iii) The owner or operator may demonstrate to the Administrator
that full or partial credits or debits should be assigned using the
procedures in Sec. 63.150(l) of subpart G of this part.
(5) Debits are generated by the difference between the actual
emissions from a Group 1 emission point that is uncontrolled or
controlled to a level less stringent than the applicable standard and
the emissions allowed for the Group 1 emission point. Debits shall be
calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs
(i)(5) (i) through (iv) of this section.
[[Page 60594]]
(i) Source-wide debits shall be calculated using Equation 18 of
this subpart:
Debits=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.017
Where:
Debits and all terms of Equation 18 are in units of Mg/month, and
EPV<INF>iU</INF>=uncontrolled emissions from process i calculated
according to the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this
section.
EPV<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 1 process i that is
uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than the
applicable standard. EPV<INF>iA</INF> is calculated using the
procedures in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section.
ES<INF>iU</INF>=uncontrolled emissions from storage tank i calculated
according to the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this
section.
ES<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 1 storage tank i that
is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than the
applicable standard. ES<INF>iA</INF> is calculated using the procedures
in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section.
EWW<INF>iC</INF>=emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if the
standard had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions.
EWW<INF>iC</INF> is calculated using the procedures in paragraph
(i)(5)(iv) of this section.
EWW<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i
that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than
the applicable standard. EWW<INF>iA</INF> is calculated using the
procedures in paragraph (i)(5)(iv) of this section.
n=the number of emission points being included in the emissions
average. The value of n is not necessarily the same for process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater.
(ii) Emissions from process vents shall be calculated in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(5)(ii) (A) through (C)
of this section.
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
uncontrolled emissions for process vents shall be calculated using the
procedures that are specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
actual emissions for process vents shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(C) As an alternative to the procedures described in paragraphs
(h)(5)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section, for continuous processes,
uncontrolled and actual emissions may be calculated by the procedures
described in Sec. 63.150(g)(2) of subpart G of this part. For purposes
of complying with this paragraph, the 98 percent reduction in
Sec. 63.150(g)(2)(iii) of subpart G of this part shall mean 90 percent.
(iii) Uncontrolled emissions from storage tanks shall be calculated
in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section. Actual emissions from storage tanks shall be calculated using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(3) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of
subpart G of this subpart, as appropriate, except as provided in
paragraphs (i)(5)(iii) (A) and (B) of this section.
(A) When Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(C) refers to Sec. 63.119(e)(2) and
90-percent reduction, Sec. 63.1362(d)(1)(ii) and 41-percent reduction
shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(B) When Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(B) refers to the procedures in
Sec. 63.120(d) for determining percent reduction for a control device,
Sec. 63.1364(d) (2) or (3) shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(iv) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(5) of subpart G of this part.
(6) Credits are generated by the difference between emissions that
are allowed for each Group 1 and Group 2 emission point and the actual
emissions from that Group 1 or Group 2 emission point that has been
controlled after November 15, 1990 to a level more stringent than what
is required in this subpart or any other State or Federal rule or
statute. Credits shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraphs (i)(6) (i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Source-wide credits shall be calculated using Equation 19 in
this paragraph (i)(6)(i):
Credits=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO97.018
Where: Credits and all terms in equation 19 are in units of Mg/month,
the baseline date is November 15, 1990, the terms consisting of a
constant multiplied by the uncontrolled emissions are the emissions
from each emission point subject to the standards in Sec. 63.1362 (b)
and (c) that is controlled to a level more stringent than the standard,
and
EPV1<INF>iU</INF> = uncontrolled emissions from each Group 1 process i
calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iii)(A) of
this section.
EPV1<INF>iA</INF> = actual emissions from each Group 1 process i that
is controlled to a level more stringent than the applicable standard.
EPV<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the
[[Page 60595]]
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iii)(B) of this section.
EPV2<INF>iB</INF> = emmissions from each Group 2 process i at the
baseline date. EPV2<INF>iB</INF> is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iii)(C) of this section.
EPV2<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 2 process i that is
controlled. EPV2<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the procedures
in paragraph (i)(6)(iii)(C) of this section.
ES1<INF>iU</INF>=uncontrolled emissions from each Group 1 storage tank
i calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of
this section.
ES1<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 1 storage tank i that
is controlled to a level more stringent that the applicable standard.
ES1<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the procedures in paragraph
(i)(6)(iv) of this section.
ES2<INF>iB</INF>=emissions from each Group 2 storage tank i at the
baseline date. ES2<INF>iB</INF> is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of this section.
ES2<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 2 storage tank i that
is controlled. ES2<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of this section.
EWW1<INF>iC</INF>=emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if
the standard had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions.
EWW1<INF>iC</INF> is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.
EWW1<INF>iA</INF>=emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i that
is controlled to a level more stringent than the applicable standard.
EWW1<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.
EWW2<INF>iB</INF>=emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream i at
the baseline date. EWW2<INF>iB</INF> is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.
EWW2<INF>iA</INF>=actual emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream
i that is controlled. EWW2<INF>iA</INF> is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.
n=number of Group 1 emission points that are included in the emissions
average. The value of n is not necessarily the same for process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater.
m=number of Group 2 emission points included in the emissions average.
The value of m is not necessarily the same for process vents, storage
tanks, and wastewater.
D=discount factor equal 0.9 for all credit-generating emission points
except those controlled by a pollution prevention measure, which will
not be discounted.
(ii) For an emission point controlled using a pollution prevention
measure, the nominal efficiency for calculating credits shall be as
determined as described in Sec. 63.150(j) of subpart G of this part.
(iii) Emissions from process vents shall be calculated in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(6)(iii) (A)
through (C) of this section
(A) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 process vents shall be
calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) (A) or
(C) of this section.
(B) Actual emissions from Group 1 process vents with a nominal
efficiency greater than the applicable standard or a pollution
prevention measure shall be calculated using equation 20:
EPV1<INF>Ai</INF>=EPV1<INF>Ui</INF> x [(1-(Nominal efficiency, %)/
100%)] (20)
(C) Baseline and actual emissions from Group 2 process vents shall
be calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(h)(2) (iii)
and (iv) with the following modifications:
(1) The term ``98 percent reduction'' shall mean ``90 percent
reduction''; and
(2) The references to paragraph (g)(2) of this section shall mean
paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section.
(iv) Uncontrolled emissions from storage tanks shall be calculated
according to the procedures described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section. Actual and baseline emissions from storage tanks shall be
calculated according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(h)(3)
of subpart G of this part, except when Sec. 63.150(h)(3) refers to
Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(i), paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
(v) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated using the
procedures in Sec. 63.150(h)(5) of subpart G of this part.
Sec. 63.1365 Monitoring and inspection requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of any existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source shall provide evidence of continued compliance with the
standard. During the initial compliance demonstration, maximum or
minimum operating parameters, as appropriate, shall be established for
emission sources that will indicate the source is in compliance. Test
data, calculations, or information from the evaluation of the control
device design shall be used to establish the operating parameter. If
the operating parameter to be established is a maximum and if
performance testing has been required, the value of the parameter shall
be the average of the maximum values from each of the three test runs.
If the operating parameter to be established is a minimum and if
performance testing has been required, the value of the parameter shall
be the average of the minimum values from each of the three test runs.
Parameter values for process vents from batch operations shall be
determined as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
The owner or operator shall operate processes and control devices
within these parameters to ensure continued compliance with the
standard. Monitoring parameters are specified for continuous process
vent control scenarios in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) For all control devices that are used to control process vent
streams totaling less than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr) HAP emissions, before
control, monitoring shall consist of a periodic verification that the
device is operating properly. This verification shall include, but not
be limited to, a periodic demonstration that the unit is working as
designed. This demonstration shall be included in the Precompliance
report, to be submitted 12 months prior to the compliance date of the
standard.
(2) For affected sources using water scrubbers that are used to
control process vent streams totaling greater than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/
yr), before controls, the owner or operator shall establish a minimum
scrubber water flow rate as a site-specific operating parameter which
must be measured and recorded every 15 minutes. The affected source
will be in violation of the emission standard if the scrubber water
flow rate, averaged over the operating day, is below the minimum value
established during the initial compliance demonstration.
(3) For affected sources using condensers that are used to control
process vent streams totaling greater than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr),
before controls, the owner or operator shall establish the maximum
condenser outlet gas temperature as a site-specific operating parameter
which must be measured and recorded every 15 minutes. The affected
source will be in violation of the emission standard if the condenser
outlet gas temperature, averaged over the operating day, is greater
than the maximum value established during the initial compliance
demonstration.
(4) For affected sources using carbon adsorbers that are used to
control process vent streams totaling greater
[[Page 60596]]
than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before controls, the owner or operator
shall establish the site-specific operating parameter(s) specified in
either paragraph (a)(4) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) A maximum outlet HAP concentration shall be specified as the
site-specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in
violation of the emission standard if the outlet HAP concentration,
averaged over the operating day, is greater than the maximum value
established during the initial compliance demonstration.
(ii) The outlet TOC concentration shall be established as the site-
specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in violation
of the emission standard if the outlet TOC concentration, averaged over
the operating day for each process, is greater than 20 ppmv.
(iii) The adsorption/regeneration cycle characteristics shall be
established under absolute peak-case conditions, and the frequency of
monitoring for the operating parameters specified below shall be
described in the Notification of Compliance Status Report. The affected
source will be in violation of the emission standard if any of the
values for these parameters established during the initial compliance
demonstration are exceeded.
(A) Maximum time of adsorption;
(B) Minimum bed temperature during regeneration;
(C) Maximum bed temperature after cooling;
(D) Minimum regeneration stream flow rate; and
(E) Maximum time between tests to determine bed poisoning.
(5) For affected sources using flares that are used to control
process vent streams totaling greater than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr),
before controls, the presence of the pilot flame shall be monitored
every 15 minutes. Loss of pilot flame is a violation of the emission
standard.
(6) For affected sources using combustion devices that are used to
control process vents totaling greater than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr),
before controls, the owner or operator shall monitor the temperature of
the gases exiting the combustion chamber as the site-specific operating
parameter which must be measured and recorded every 15 minutes. The
affected sources will be in violation of the emission standard if the
chamber temperature averaged over the operating day, is greater than
the maximum value established during the initial compliance
demonstration.
(7) For each fabric filter used to control particulate HAP
emissions from bag dumps and product dryers totaling more than 0.91 Mg/
yr (1 ton/yr), before controls, the owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system that meets the requirements in paragraphs (a)(7) (i) through
(viii) of this section.
(i) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute PM emissions.
(ii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when an increase in PM emissions over a preset
level is detected.
(iii) For positive pressure fabric filters, a bag leak detector
must be installed in each fabric filter compartment or cell. If a
negative pressure or induced air filter is used, the bag leak detector
must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. Where multiple bag
leak detectors are required (for either type of fabric filter), the
system instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(iv) The bag leak detection system shall be installed, operated,
calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent with available
guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, in the
absence of such guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and
instructions.
(v) Calibration of the system shall, at a minimum, consist of
establishing the relative baseline output level by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time.
(vi) The owner or operator shall not adjust the range, averaging
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time contained in the
Notification of Compliance Status report without written approval from
the Administrator.
(vii) If the alarm on a bag leak detection system is triggered, the
owner or operator shall inspect the control device to determine the
cause of the deviation and initiate within 1 hour of the alarm the
corrective actions specified in the Notification of Compliance Status
report. Failure to initiate the corrective action procedures within 1
hour of the alarm is a violation of the particulate HAP emission
standard.
(viii) If the bag leak detection system alarm is activated for more
than 5 percent of the total operating time during a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator shall develop and implement a written
quality improvement plan consistent with subpart D of this part of the
draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring.
(8) For each waste management unit, treatment process, or control
device used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(d), the owner or operator shall
comply with the procedures specified in Sec. 63.143 of subpart G of
this part, except that when the procedures to request approval to
monitor alternative parameters according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.151(f) are referred to in Sec. 63.143(d)(3), the procedures in
paragraph (c) of this section shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of any existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source that chooses to comply with the emission limit or
emission reduction requirement for batch process vents and combined
streams from process vents and storage tanks shall provide evidence of
continued compliance with the standard. As part of the initial
compliance demonstrations for batch process vents and storage tanks,
test data, compliance calculations, or information from the control
device design evaluation shall be used to establish a maximum or
minimum level of a relevant operating parameter for each control device
that the owner or operator selects to operate as part of achieving the
required emission reduction or emission limitation. The owner or
operator shall operate processes and control devices within these
parameters to ensure continued compliance with the standard.
(1) For devices that are used to control batch process vent streams
totaling less than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr) HAP emissions, before control,
monitoring shall consist of a periodic verification that the device is
operating properly. This verification shall include, but not be limited
to, a periodic demonstration that the unit is working as designed. This
demonstration shall be included in the Precompliance report, to be
submitted 12 months prior to the compliance date of the standard.
(2) For batch process vents that are routed to a device that
receives HAP in excess of 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before control, the
level(s) shall be established in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) (i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) If more than one batch emission episode or more than one
portion of a batch emission episode has been selected to be controlled,
a single level for the batch cycle(s) or process(es) shall be
calculated from the initial compliance demonstration. The appropriate
parameter shall be determined for the peak-case conditions, as
determined in Sec. 63.1364(b)(7) (ii) and (iii), selected to be
controlled. The average parameter monitoring level for the cycle(s) or
[[Page 60597]]
process(es) shall be based on the parameter value determined from the
peak-case conditions.
(ii) Instead of establishing a single level for the batch cycle(s)
or process(es), as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, an
owner or operator may establish separate levels for each batch emission
episode, or portion thereof, selected to be controlled.
(iii) For devices controlling at least 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for
which a performance test is required, the owner or operator may
establish the parametric monitoring level(s) based on the performance
test supplemented by engineering assessments and manufacturer's
recommendations. Performance testing is not required to be conducted
over the entire range of expected parameter values. The rationale for
the specific level for each parameter, including any data and
calculations used to develop the level(s) and a description of why the
level indicates proper operation of the control device shall be
provided in the Precompliance report. The procedures specified in this
section have not been approved by the Administrator and determination
of the parametric monitoring level using these procedures is subject to
review and approval by the Administrator.
(iv) For devices controlling at least 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for
which a performance test is conducted at routine conditions, the owner
or operator shall establish the parametric monitoring level(s) at
conditions of the test. The level(s) established shall be provided in
the Notification of Compliance Status report.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) (4) through (8) of this
section, if the sum of HAP emissions, before control, routed to the
device is greater than 0.91 Mg/yr (1.0 ton/yr), the appropriate
parameter shall be monitored at 15-minute intervals, or at least once
for batch emission episodes of duration shorter than 15 minutes, for
the entire period in which the control device is functioning in
achieving required removals.
(4) Affected sources with condensers on process vents shall
establish the maximum condenser outlet gas temperature as a site-
specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in violation
of the emission standard if the condenser outlet gas temperature,
averaged over the operating day for each process, is greater than the
value established during the initial compliance demonstration.
(5) For affected sources using water scrubbers, the owner or
operator shall establish a minimum scrubber water flow rate as a site-
specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in violaton
of the emission standard if the scrubber water flow rate, averaged over
the operating day for each process, is below the minimum flow rate
established during the initial compliance demonstration.
(6) For affected sources using carbon adsorbers, the owner or
operator shall establish and monitor the site-specific operating
parameter(s) in either paragraph (b)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section:
(i) A maximum outlet HAP concentration shall be established as the
site-specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in
violation of the emission standard if the outlet HAP concentration,
averaged over the operating day for each process, is greater than the
value established during the initial compliance demonstration.
(ii) The outlet TOC concentration shall be established as the site-
specific operating parameter. The affected source will be in violation
of the emission standard if the outlet TOC concentration, averaged over
the operating day for each process, is greater than 20 ppmv.
(iii) The adsorption/regeneration cycle characteristics shall be
established under absolute peak-case conditions, and the frequency of
monitoring for the operating parameters specified below shall be
described in the Notification of Compliance Status Report. The affected
source will be in violation of the emission standard if any of the
values for these parameters established during the initial compliance
demonstration are exceeded.
(A) Maximum time of adsorption;
(B) Minimum bed temperature during regeneration;
(C) Maximum bed temperature after cooling;
(D) Minimum regeneration stream flow rate; and
(E) Maximum time between tests to determine bed poisoning.
(7) For affected sources using flares, the presence of the pilot
flame shall be monitored. Loss of pilot flame is a violation of the
emission standard.
(8) For affected sources using combustion devices, the temperature
of the gases exiting the combustion chamber shall be monitored. The
affected source will be in violation of the emission standard if the
combustion chamber temperature, averaged over the operating day for
each process, is less than the value established during the initial
compliance demonstration.
(c) An owner or operator may request approval to monitor parameters
other than those required by paragraphs (a)(2) through (8) and (b)(5)
through (8) of this section. The request shall be submitted according
to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part
or in the Precompliance Report (as specified in Sec. 63.1367(a)(2)).
(d) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do
not constitute a violation if they occur under the conditions described
in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For continuous processes, during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, and the facility follows its startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(2) For batch processes, during a malfunction, and the facility
follows its startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(e) Equipment leaks. The owner or operator of any affected source
complying with the requirements of subpart H of this part shall meet
the monitoring requirements specified in subpart H of this part.
(f) Heat exchangers. The owner or operator of an affected source
complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(g) shall meet the
monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) An owner or operator that elects to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.1362(g)(2) shall meet the monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.104(b) of subpart F of this part.
(2) An owner or operator that elects to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.1362(g)(3) shall prepare and implement a
monitoring plan that includes the information specified in paragraphs
(f)(2) (i) through (iv) of this section. The plan shall require
monitoring of one or more surrogate indicators or monitoring of one or
more process parameters or other conditions that indicate a leak.
Monitoring that is already being conducted for other purposes may be
used to satisfy the requirements of this section.
(i) A description of the parameter or condition to be monitored and
an explanation of how the selected parameter or condition will reliably
indicate the presence of a leak.
(ii) The parameter level(s) or condition(s) that shall constitute a
leak. This shall be documented by data or calculations showing that the
selected levels or conditions will reliably identify leaks. The
monitoring must be sufficiently sensitive to determine the range of
parameter levels or conditions when the system is not leaking. When the
selected parameter level or
[[Page 60598]]
condition is outside that range, a leak is detected.
(iii) The monitoring frequency which shall be no less frequent than
monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter to detect
leaks.
(iv) The records that will be maintained to document compliance
with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(f).
(g) Pollution prevention. The owner or operator of an affected
source that chooses to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(j)(2) or (3) shall calculate annual rolling average values
of the HAP and VOC factors in accordance with the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.1364(g)(1) (i) and (ii).
The owner or operator will be considered out of compliance any time
the annual HAP factor exceeds the baseline HAP factor by the amount
specified in either Sec. 63.1364 (g)(1) or (2)(i), or the annual VOC
factor exceeds the baseline VOC factor.
(h) Emissions averaging. The owner or operator of an affected
source that chooses to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(k)
shall meet all monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), and (d) of this section, as applicable, for all processes,
storage tanks, and waste management units included in the emissions
average.
Sec. 63.1366 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall keep records
of daily values of equipment operating parameters specified to be
monitored under Sec. 63.1365, or specified by the Administrator.
Records shall be kept in accordance with the requirements of applicable
paragraphs of Sec. 63.10 of subpart A of this part, as specified in the
General Provisions applicability table of this subpart (Table 1). The
owner or operator shall keep records up-to-date and readily accessible.
(1) A daily (24-hour) average shall be calculated as the average of
all values for a monitored parameter recorded during the operating day.
(2) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating
permit or the Notification of Compliance Status in Sec. 63.9(h) of
subpart A of this part. It may be from midnight to midnight or another
continuous 24-hour period.
(3) For every operating day in which the daily average value for an
operating parameter is outside its established range, the owner or
operator shall keep records of each parameter value reading taken
during the day on which the excursion occurred.
(4) For processes subject to Sec. 63.1362(j), records shall be
maintained of annual HAP and VOC factors calculated every 30 days for
continuous processes and every 10 batches for batch processes.
(5) For each bag leak detector used to monitor particulate HAP
emissions from a fabric filter, the owner or operator shall maintain
records of any bag leak detection alarm, including the date and time,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected source that complies with
the standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater systems
shall maintain up-to-date, readily accessible records of the
information specified in paragraphs (b) (1) through (5) of this section
to document that HAP emissions or HAP loadings (for wastewater) are
below the limits specified in Sec. 63.1362:
(1) The emissions of gaseous organic HAP and HCl per batch for each
process.
(2) The wastewater concentrations and flowrates per POD and
process.
(3) The number of batches per year for each batch process.
(4) The operating hours per year for continuous processes.
(5) The number of tank turnovers per year.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
standards in Sec. 63.1362(e), and implementing the leak detection and
repair program specified in subpart H of this part, shall implement the
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.181 of subpart H of
this part. All records shall be retained for a period of 5 years, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of
this part.
(d) For unit operations occurring more than once per day,
exceedances of established parameter limits shall result in no more
than one violation per operating day for each monitored item of
equipment utilized in the unit operation.
(e) For certain items of monitored equipment used for more than one
type of unit operation in the course of an operating day, exceedances
shall result in no more than one violation per operating day, per item
of monitored equipment, for each type of unit operation in which the
item is in service.
(f) An owner or operator of an affected source that chooses to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(k) shall maintain up-to-
date records of the following information:
(1) An Implementation Plan which shall include in the plan, for all
emission points included in each of the emissions averages, the
information listed in paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) The identification of all emission points in each emissions
average.
(ii) The values of all parameters needed for input to the emission
debits and credits equations in Sec. 63.1364(i).
(iii) The calculations used to obtain the debits and credits.
(iv) The estimated values for all parameters required to be
monitored under Sec. 63.1365(h) for each emission point included in an
average. These parameter values, or as appropriate, limited ranges for
parameter values, shall be specified as enforceable operating
conditions for the operation of the process, storage tank, or waste
management unit, as appropriate. Changes to the parameters must be
reported as required by Sec. 63.1367(d).
(v) A statement that the compliance demonstration, monitoring,
inspection, recordkeeping and reporting provisions in Sec. 63.1364(i),
Sec. 63.1365(h), and Sec. 63.1367(d) that are applicable to each
emission point in the emissions average will be implemented beginning
on the date of compliance.
(2) The Implementation Plan shall demonstrate that the emissions
from the emission points proposed to be included in the average will
not result in greater hazard or, at the option of the operating permit
authority, greater risk to human health or the environment than if the
emission points were controlled according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.1362(b) through (d).
(i) This demonstration of hazard or risk equivalency shall be made
to the satisfaction of the operating permit authority.
(A) The Administrator may require an owner or operator to use
specific methodologies and procedures for making a hazard or risk
determination.
(B) The demonstration and approval of hazard or risk equivalency
shall be made according to any guidance that the Administrator makes
available for use or any other technically sound information or
methods.
(ii) An Implementation Plan that does not demonstrate hazard or
risk equivalency to the satisfaction of the Administrator shall not be
approved. The Administrator may require such adjustments to the
Implementation Plan as are necessary in order to ensure that the
average will not result in greater hazard or risk to human health or
the environment than would result if the emission points were
controlled according to Sec. 63.1362(b) through (d).
(iii) A hazard or risk equivalency demonstration must satisfy the
requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Be a quantitative, comparative chemical hazard or risk
assessment;
[[Page 60599]]
(B) Account for differences between averaging and non-averaging
options in chemical hazard or risk to human health or the environment;
and
(C) Meet any requirements set by the Administrator for such
demonstrations.
(3) Records as specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this
section.
(4) A calculation of the debits and credits as specified in
Sec. 63.1364(i) for the last quarter and the prior four quarters.
(g) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
requirements in Sec. 63.1362(g) shall retain the records identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section as specified in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(1) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.1362(g)(2) or (3)
indicating a leak was detected, and if demonstrated not to be a leak,
the basis for that determination.
(2) Records of any leaks detected by procedures subject to
Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)(ii) and the date the leak was discovered.
(3) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
(4) The method or procedure used to confirm repair of a leak and
the date repair was confirmed.
Sec. 63.1367 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source that elects to
comply with the emission limit or emission reduction requirements for
process vents, storage tanks, and waste management units, shall comply
with the reporting requirements of applicable paragraphs of Secs. 63.9
and 63.10 of subpart A of this part, as specified in the General
Provisions applicability table.
(1) The Notification of Compliance Status report required under
Sec. 63.9(h) shall be submitted within 150 calendar days of the
compliance date and shall include the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP emissions
from applicable sources.
(ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, or calculations used to
demonstrate compliance. For performance tests, results should include
descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and quality assurance
procedures.
(iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies,
and the values of monitored parameters established during the initial
compliance determinations, including data and calculations to support
the levels established.
(iv) For fabric filters that are monitored with bag leak detectors,
descriptions of procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
the fabric filters and corrective actions to be taken when the
particulate concentration exceeds the standard and activates the alarm.
(2) The Precompliance report shall be submitted 12 months prior to
the compliance date of the standard. For new sources, the Precompliance
report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the application for
approval of construction or reconstruction. The Administrator shall
have 60 days to approve or disapprove the plan. The plan shall be
considered approved if the Administrator either approves the plan in
writing, or fails to disapprove the plan in writing. The 60 day period
shall begin when the Administrator receives the request. If the request
is denied, the owner or operator must still be in compliance with the
standard by the compliance date. The Precompliance report shall include
the information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Requests for approval to use alternative monitoring parameters
according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of
this part or requests to set monitoring parameters according to
Sec. 63.1365(b)(2)(iii).
(ii) Descriptions of how the control devices subject to
Sec. 63.1365(a)(1) and (b)(1) will be checked to verify that they are
operating as designed.
(iii) A description of test conditions and limits of operation for
control devices tested under normal conditions, and the corresponding
monitoring parameter values.
(b) Quarterly reports. The owner or operator shall submit to the
Administrator, as part of the quarterly excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance report and summary report required by
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A of this part, the recorded information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) though (3) of this section.
(1) Reports of monitoring data, including 15-minute monitoring
values, daily average values of monitored parameters for all operating
days when the average values were outside the ranges established in the
Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit, and records of
all alarms from the bag leak detection systems.
(2) Reports of the duration of periods when monitoring data are not
collected for each excursion caused by insufficient monitoring data. An
excursion means either of the two cases listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
or (ii) of this section. For a control device where multiple parameters
are monitored, if one or more of the parameters meets the excursion
criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, this is
considered a single excursion for the control device.
(i) When the period of control device operation is 4 hours or
greater in an operating day and monitoring data are insufficient to
constitute a valid hour of data, as defined in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of
this section, for at least 75 percent of the operating hours.
(ii) When the period of control device operation is less than 4
hours in an operating day and more than one of the hours during the
period of operation does not constitute a valid hour of data due to
insufficient monitoring data.
(iii) Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute a valid hour
of data, as used in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, if
measured values are unavailable for any of the 15-minute periods within
the hour.
(3) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of
subpart G of this part, is made that causes the emission rate from a de
minimis emission point to become a process vent with an emission rate
of 0.45 kg/yr (1 lb/yr) or greater, or a change is made in any of the
information submitted in the Notification of Compliance Report, the
owner or operator shall submit a report within 180 calendar days after
the process change. The report may be submitted as part of the next
summary report required under Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A of this
part. The report shall include:
(i) A description of the process change;
(ii) The results of the recalculation of the emission rate;
(iii) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
Notification of Compliance Status under Sec. 63.1367(a)(1); and
(iv) Information required by the Notification of Compliance Status
under Sec. 63.1367(a)(1) for changes involving the addition of
processes or equipment.
(c) Equipment leaks. The owner or operator of an affected source
subject to the standards in Sec. 63.1362(e), shall implement the
reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.182 of this part. Copies of
all reports shall be retained as records for a period of 5 years, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of
this part.
(d) Emissions averaging. An owner or operator of an affected source
that chooses to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(k) shall
submit all information as specified in Sec. 63.1366(f) for all emission
points included in the emissions average. The
[[Page 60600]]
owner or operator shall also submit to the Administrator all
information specified in paragraph (b) of this section for each
emission point included in the emissions average.
(1) The reports shall also include the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) Any changes of the processes, storage tanks, or waste
management unit included in the average.
(ii) The calculation of the debits and credits for the reporting
period.
(iii) Changes to the Implementation Plan which affect the
calculation methodology of uncontrolled or controlled emissions or the
hazard or risk equivalency determination.
(iv) Any changes to the parameters monitored according to
Sec. 63.1365(h).
(2) Every 4th quarter report shall include the results according to
Sec. 63.1366(f)(4) to demonstrate the emissions averaging provisions of
Sec. 63.1362(k), Sec. 63.1364(i), Sec. 63.1365(h), and Sec. 63.1366(f)
are satisfied.
(e) Heat exchange systems. If an owner or operator of an affected
source invokes the delay of repair provisions for a heat exchange
system as specified in Sec. 63.1362(g)(5), the information in
paragraphs (e) (1) through (5) of this section shall be submitted in
the next excess emissions report required in paragraph (b) of this
section. If the leak remains unrepaired, the information shall also be
submitted in each subsequent report, until repair of the leak is
reported.
(1) The presence of the leak and the date the leak was detected.
(2) Whether or not the leak has been repaired.
(3) The reason(s) for delay of repair. If delay of repair is
invoked due to the reasons described in Sec. 63.104(e)(2) of subpart F
of this part, documentation of emissions estimates shall also be
submitted.
(4) If the leak remains unrepaired, the expected date of repair.
(5) If the leak is repaired, the date the leak was successfully
repaired.
(f) An owner or operator who submits an operating permit
application instead of an Implementation plan shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (e) (1) through (3) of this section
with the operating permit.
(1) The information specified in Sec. 63.1366(f) for emission
points included in the emissions average;
(2) The information specified in Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A of this
part, as applicable; and
(3) The information specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
as applicable.
Sec. 63.1368 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(l) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart MMM.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MMM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1).................... Yes..................... Additional terms are defined in Sec. 63.1361.
Sec. 63.1(a)(2)-(3)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(a)(4).................... Yes..................... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies applicability
of each paragraph in subpart A to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(7)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(a)(8).................... No...................... Discusses State programs.
Sec. 63.1(a)(9).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1360 specifies applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Yes..................... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies the
applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to
sources subject to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................... No...................... Area sources are not subject to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(d)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Yes..................... Additional terms are defined in Sec. 63.1361;
when overlap between subparts A and MMM occurs,
subpart MMM takes precedence.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Yes..................... Other units used in subpart MMM are defined in
that subpart.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(4).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)-(c)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.5(a)....................... Yes..................... Except replace the terms ``source'' and
``stationary source'' in Sec. 63.5(a)(1) of
subpart A with ``affected source''.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(5)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.5(b)(6).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1360(g) specifies requirements for
determining applicability of added PAI
equipment.
Sec. 63.5(c)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)-(e)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1).................... Yes..................... Except replace ``source'' in Sec. 63.5(f)(1) of
subpart A with ``affected source''.
Sec. 63.5(f)(2).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(2)................ No...................... Sec. 63.1363 specifies compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(3)-(4)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................... Yes.
[[Page 60601]]
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................ Yes..................... Except replace ``source'' in Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-
(2) of subpart A with ``affected source''.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................ N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(d)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)....................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1360 specifies that the
standards in subpart MMM apply during startup
and shutdown for batch processes; therefore,
these activities would not be covered in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)....................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1360 specifies that the
standards in subpart MMM also apply during
startup and shutdown for batch processes.
Sec. 63.6(g)....................... Yes..................... An alternative standard has been proposed;
however, affected sources will have the
opportunity to demonstrate other alternatives
to the Administrator.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not contain any opacity or
visible emissions standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(i)(2).................... Yes..................... Except replace ``source'' in Sec. 63.6(2)(i)
and (ii) of subpart A with ``affected source.''
Sec. 63.6(i)(3)-(14)............... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi)............ Yes..................... Sec. 63.1367 specifies that test results must
be submitted in the Notification of Compliance
Status due 150 days after the compliance date.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(vii)-(viii)........ N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix)-(c)............ Yes.
Sec. 63.7(d)....................... Yes..................... Except replace ``source'' in Sec. 63.7(d) of
subpart A with ``affected source.''
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Yes..................... Sec. 63.1364 contains test methods specific to
PAI sources.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1364 specifies less than 3 runs
for certain tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(g)(1).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1367(a) specifies that the
results of the performance test be submitted
with the Notification of Compliance Status
report.
Sec. 63.7(g)(2).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.7(g)(3).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(h)....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1365 specifies CMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(b)(3)-(c)(3)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1365 specifies monitoring frequencies.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)-(8)................ No.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(f)(3)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(f)(4).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1367(b) specifies that requests
may also be included in the Precompliance
report.
Sec. 63.8(f)(5).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not require CEM's.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... No...................... Sec. 63.1365 specifies data reduction
procedures.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... No.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not contain opacity and visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... No.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i)................ Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1367(a)(1) specifies additional
information to include in the Notification of
Compliance Status report.
Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii)................ No...................... Sec. 63.1367 specifies the Notification of
Compliance Status report is to be submitted
within 150 days after the compliance date.
Sec. 63.9(h)(3).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.9(i)-(j)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(a)-(b)(1)............... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)................... No...................... Sec. 63.1366 specifies recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)...................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1367(a) specifies that the
results of the performance test be submitted
with the Notification of Compliance Status
report.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity and visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Yes.
[[Page 60602]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Yes..................... Except that actions and reporting for batch
processes do not apply during startup and
shutdown.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)(i)............ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Yes.
Sec. 63.11-Sec. 63.15............. Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart MMM.--Proposed Standards for PAI Production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Applicability Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents............... Existing:
Processes having 90% for organic HAP
uncontrolled per process or <ls-
organic HAP thn-eq>20 ppmv TOC.
emissions <gr-thn-
eq>0.15 Mg/yr.
Processes having 94% for HCI per
uncontrolled HCI process.
emissions <gr-thn-
eq>6.8 Mg/yr.
Individual 98% gaseous organic
process vents HAP control per
meeting TRE vent or <ls-thn-
criteria that have eq>20 ppmv TOC.
gaseous organic HAP
emissions
controlled to less
than 90% as of
proposal date.
New:
Processes having 98% for gaseous
uncontrolled organic HAP per
organic HAP process or <ls-thn-
emissions <gr-thn- eq>20 ppmv TOC at
eq>0.15 Mg/yr. control device
outlet.
Processes having 94% for HCl per
uncontrolled HCl process.
emissions <gr-thn-
eq>6.8 Mg/yr and
<191 Mg/yr.
Processes having 99.9% for HCl per
uncontrolled HCl process.
emissions <gr-thn-
eq>191 Mg/yr.
Storage tanks............... Existing: <gr-thn-
eq>0.113 Mg/yr
uncontrolled HAP
emissions:
<bullet> <76 41% control per
m\3\ capacity. tank.
<bullet> <gr-thn 95% control per
-76 m\3\ capacity. tank.
New: <gr-thn-eq>0.45 98% control per tank
kg/yr uncontrolled or <ls-thn-eq>20
HAP emissions. ppmv TOC at control
device outlet.
Wastewater <SUP>a................ Existing: <gr-thn- Reduce concentration
eq>10,000 ppmw of total Table 9
Table 9 compounds compounds to <50
at any flowrate or ppmw (or other
<gr-thn-eq>1,000 options).
ppmw Table 9
compounds at <gr-
thn-eq>10 L/min.
New:
Same criteria Reduce concentration
for existing of total Table 9
sources. compounds to <50
ppmw (or other
options).
Total HAP load 99% reduction of
in wastewater POD Table 9 compounds
streams <gr-thn- from all streams.
eq>2,100 Mg/yr.
Equipment leaks............. Subpart H........... Subpart H with minor
changes.
Bag dumps and product dryers All................. Particulate HAP
concentration not
to exceed 0.01 gr/
dscf.
Heat exchange systems....... Each heat exchange Monitoring and leak
system used to cool repair program as
process equipment in HON.
in PAI
manufacturing
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Table 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
[FR Doc. 97-29149 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P