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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

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

[Federal Register: April 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16153-16202]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04ap02-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7150-8]
RIN 2060-AE82

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

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

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category and the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing source category. The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category includes many previously unregulated
organic chemical processing units at major sources. The Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing source category includes the manufacture of a
number of coatings including paints, inks, and adhesives. The EPA has
determined that both source categories include facilities that are
major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including toluene,
methanol, xylene, hydrogen chloride, and methylene chloride. Methylene
chloride is considered to be a probable human carcinogen and the other
pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These proposed
NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by
requiring all major sources in the relevant source categories to meet
HAP emission limitations and work practice standards reflecting the
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The
proposed subpart FFFF will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 28,000
Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (30,900 tons per year (tpy)), and proposed
subpart HHHHH will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 5,670 Mg/yr
(6,250 tpy).

DATES: Comments: Submit comments on or before June 3, 2002.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 24, 2002, a public hearing will be held at 10
a.m. on May 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments: By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-04, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-96-04, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held in the
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
Docket: Docket No. A-96-04 contains supporting information used in
developing the NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the proposed
NESHAP, contact Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5402, electronic mail
address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. For information about the public
hearing, contact Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5607, electronic mail
address noell.maria@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments: Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted either as an ASCII file to avoid the use of
special characters and encryption problems or on disks in
WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-96-04. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Randy McDonald, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel
Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Maria Noell at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Noell to
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing
will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning these proposed NESHAP.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of these proposed
NESHAP. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated NESHAP and
their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in
the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The
regulatory text and other materials related to these proposed NESHAP
are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on
request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.

[[Page 16155]]

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include those listed in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category SIC NAICS entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................. 282, 283, 284, 285, 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, Producers of specialty
286, 287, 289, 386. 3255, 3256, 3259, organic chemicals,
except 325131 and paints, coatings,
325181. adhesives, inks,
explosives, certain
polymers and resins,
and certain pesticide
intermediates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2435 and
Sec. 63.7985 of the proposed NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source categories?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and
the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source categories?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by
these proposed NESHAP?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other
standards?
E. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
H. How will the proposed subpart FFFF be incorporated into Title
V permits?
III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Emission Limitations and Work
Practice Standards
A. How did we select the source categories?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for existing and new sources?
D. How did we select the format of the standards?
E. How did we select the testing and initial compliance
requirements?
F. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
G. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements?
H. What is the relationship of these proposed NESHAP to other
rules?
I. What types of comments are being specifically requested by
the Administrator?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
B. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. Background

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

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and some area sources of HAP, and to
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories.
The categories of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP are
described in section I.C. Major sources of HAP are those that are
located within a contiguous area and under common control and have the
potential to emit greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any one HAP or
22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the
best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, nonair quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?

1. Initial Source Categories
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of this
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise
the list

[[Page 16156]]

from time to time as better information became available.
2. Changes to the Initial List
Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several
of the original source categories on the list had similar process
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original
listing into one broad set of emission standards. On November 7, 1996,
we published a notice combining 21 source categories from the initial
list of 174 into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes source
category (61 FR 57602).
Twelve of the 21 source categories were listed under the
miscellaneous process industry group on the initial list. These
include: benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide
production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins
production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production,
hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate
plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine production, and OBPA/1,3-diisocyanate production.
Eight of the 21 source categories were listed under the polymers and
resins industry group. These include: alkyd resins production,
polyester resins production, polyvinyl alcohol production, polyvinyl
acetate emulsions production, polyvinylbutyral production, polymerized
vinylidene chloride production, polymethylmethacrylate production, and
maleic anhydride copolymers production. The last of the 21 source
categories is the manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives.
Along with these 21 source categories, the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Processes category was also defined in the Federal Register
notice to include organic chemical manufacturing defined by SIC codes
282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, and 386 which are not being covered by
any other MACT standard. One example is the coverage of batch process
vents from reactors in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (SOCMI) that are excluded from the provisions of the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON). Another example, also an exclusion in the HON, is
the coverage of HAP emissions from SOCMI processes in which HAP are
used only as solvents. The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes
source category would also cover production of pesticide intermediates
that are not covered by the Pesticide Active Ingredient NESHAP, as well
as materials not considered primary products under the Group I and IV
Polymers and Resins NESHAP. In addition to the 21 listed source
categories, two other source categories are to be subsumed into the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes source category. These are
quaternary ammonium compounds production and ammonium sulfate
production from caprolactam by-product plants.
3. Grouping Into Two Source Categories
On November 18, 1999, we published a Federal Register notice
describing changes to the source category list (64 FR 63035). At that
time, we also described our intent to group the source categories into
two new source categories instead of one. The two new source categories
are called the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing'' source
category and the ``Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing'' source
category. During our review of the data, we decided that the emission
sources in the miscellaneous coating manufacturing industry should be
regulated differently from other miscellaneous organic chemical
processes because their emission stream could be characterized more
narrowly and standards could be tailored for these characteristics. For
example, coatings manufacturing involves mixing and blending of raw
materials at ambient temperatures. Emissions from these operations
generally result from the displacement of materials during processing.
Therefore, the proposed standards for process vents from coatings
process vessels are tailored to specific condenser controls operating
on saturated streams at ambient conditions. Conversely, organic
chemical manufacturing involves chemical reactions and separation
processes conducted at elevated temperatures. Emissions from these
processes result from exothermic reactions, vessel heating, gas
sparging, depressurizations, displacements, as well as other events,
and emission stream characteristics vary in concentration, flowrate,
and temperature. Because emission stream characteristics vary
extensively in the broader source category, the compliance options are
structured to accommodate a wide range of conditions. The difference in
conditions and emission characteristics between the two source
categories provides the basis for today's proposed NESHAP, which set
MACT standards for two separate source categories in the proposed
subparts FFFF and HHHHH of 40 CFR part 63.

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

Today's proposed NESHAP protect air quality and promote the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the CAA. The HAP emitted by the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source
categories include but are not limited to methanol, hydrogen chloride,
cresols, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), toluene, vinyl
acetate, xylene, hydrogen fluoride, hexane, and methyl chloride.
Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects.
The HAP that would be controlled with these NESHAP are associated
with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects
include chronic (long-term) health disorders (e.g., irritation and
damage to nasal membranes; damage to the liver, kidneys, and testicles)
and acute health disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes, throat, and
mucous membranes; dizziness, headache, and nausea). Three of the HAP
have been classified as probable or possible human carcinogens.
We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the
facilities covered by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP, and the people living
around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis
to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from
these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore,
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However,
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the NESHAP will reduce
emissions and subsequent exposures.
Acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) exposure of humans to
methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision,
headache, dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the
reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in
humans. Birth defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and
mice exposed to methanol by

[[Page 16157]]

inhalation. A methanol inhalation study using rhesus monkeys reported a
decrease in the length of pregnancy and limited evidence of impaired
learning ability in offspring. We have not classified methanol with
respect to carcinogenicity.
Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to
the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may
cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and
pulmonary edema in humans. Dermal contact may produce severe burns,
ulceration, and scarring. Chronic occupational exposure to hydrochloric
acid has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis
in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause
dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the
reproductive or developmental effects of hydrochloric acid in humans.
In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by inhalation, altered estrus
cycles have been reported in females, and increased fetal mortality and
decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not
classified hydrochloric acid for carcinogenicity.
Acute inhalation exposure by humans to mixed cresols results in
respiratory tract irritation, with symptoms such as dryness, nasal
constriction, and throat irritation. Cresols are also strong dermal
irritants. No information is available on the chronic effects of mixed
cresols in humans, but animal studies have reported effects on the
blood, liver, kidney, and central nervous system, and reduced body
weight from oral and inhalation exposure to mixed cresols. No
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects
of mixed cresols in humans. Animal studies with oral exposure have
reported developmental effects, but only at doses toxic to the mother,
and no reproductive effects. Only anecdotal information is available on
the carcinogenic effects of mixed cresols in humans. Several animal
studies suggest that individual cresol compounds (o-cresol, m-cresol,
and p-cresol) may act as tumor promoters. We have classified o-cresol,
m-cresol, and p-cresol as Group C, possible human carcinogens.
Acute exposure to methylene chloride by inhalation affects the
nervous system, causing decreased visual, auditory, and motor
functions. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The
effects of chronic exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the
central nervous system is a potential target in both humans and
animals. Limited animal studies have reported developmental effects.
Human data are inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer.
Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign
mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. We
have classified methylene chloride as a Group B2, probable human
carcinogen.
Acute inhalation exposure to MEK in humans results in irritation to
the eyes, nose, and throat. Limited information is available on the
chronic effects of MEK in humans. Chronic inhalation studies in animals
have reported slight neurological, liver, kidney, and respiratory
effects. No information is available on the developmental,
reproductive, or carcinogenic effects of MEK in humans. Developmental
effects, including decreased fetal weight and fetal malformations, have
been reported in mice and rats exposed to MEK via inhalation and
ingestion. We have classified MEK in Group D, not classifiable as to
human carcinogenicity.
Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to the
central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and
nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. People who abuse toluene-based
products by deliberately inhaling their vapors have shown adverse
nervous system effects. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size,
involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision.
Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of toluene also
causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore
throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep.
Studies of children of pregnant women exposed by inhalation to toluene
or to mixed solvents have reported nervous system problems, facial and
limb abnormalities, and delayed development. However, these effects may
not be attributable to toluene alone.
Acute inhalation exposure of workers to vinyl acetate has resulted
in eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Chronic occupational
exposure results in upper respiratory tract irritation, cough, and/or
hoarseness. Nasal epithelial lesions and irritation and inflammation of
the respiratory tract were observed in mice and rats chronically
exposed by inhalation. No information is available on the reproductive,
developmental, or carcinogenic effects of vinyl acetate in humans. Some
limited animal data suggest reduced body weight, fetal growth
retardation, and minor skeletal fetal defects at high exposure levels.
An increased incidence of nasal cavity tumors has been observed in rats
exposed by inhalation. We have not classified vinyl acetate for
carcinogenicity.
Acute inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three closely
related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose and
throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye
irritation, and neurological effects. Chronic inhalation of xylenes in
humans may result in nervous system effects such as headache,
dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects
include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain,
abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and
kidneys.
Acute inhalation exposure to gaseous hydrogen fluoride can cause
respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary
edema. Chronic exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial
effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for the
treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride
through drinking water may cause dental fluorosis or mottling, while
very high exposures through drinking water or air can result in
skeletal fluorosis. The only developmental effect observed from
fluoride exposure in humans is dental fluorosis which can occur in a
child's teeth when a mother receives high levels of fluoride during
pregnancy. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women
occupationally exposed to fluoride. We have not classified hydrogen
fluoride for carcinogenicity.
Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of hexane causes
mild central nervous system effects, including dizziness, giddiness,
slight nausea, and headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in air causes
numbness in the extremities, muscular weakness, blurred vision,
headache, and fatigue. One study reported testicular damage in rats
exposed to hexane through inhalation. No information is available on
the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. We have
classified hexane in Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
Acute exposure to high concentrations of methyl chloride in humans
has caused severe neurological effects including convulsions, coma, and
death. Methyl chloride has also caused effects on heart rate, blood
pressure, liver, and kidneys in humans. Chronic animal studies have
shown liver, kidney, spleen, and central nervous system effects. No
studies are available concerning developmental or reproductive effects
of methyl chloride in humans. Inhalation studies have demonstrated that
methyl chloride

[[Page 16158]]

causes reproductive effects in male rats, with effects including
testicular lesions and decreased sperm production. Human cancer data
are limited. Animal studies have noted kidney tumors in male mice. We
have classified methyl chloride as a Group C, possible human
carcinogen.

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by These
Proposed NESHAP?

As noted in section I.C of this preamble, we are creating two new
source categories from the combination of several existing source
categories. These two source categories, which are affected by today's
proposed NESHAP, are called the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing'' source category and the ``Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing'' source category. There are no subcategories.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?

The sources of emissions at both source categories are process
vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and
wastewater systems. Total baseline HAP emissions (i.e., the current
level of control) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source category are estimated to be on the order of 44,700 Mg/yr
(49,300 tons/yr). Emissions from equipment leaks account for the
largest fraction of emissions, or approximately 46 percent of the
total. Emissions from process vents and wastewater systems account for
approximately 25 percent and 28 percent of the total, respectively.
Emissions from storage tanks and transfer operations account for less
than 1 percent of the total.
Total baseline HAP emissions for the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing source category are estimated to be 7,780 Mg/yr (8,580
tons/yr). Emissions from mixing vessels and equipment leaks make up
nearly 86 percent and 13 percent of the total, respectively; less than
1 percent of the emissions are from wastewater, transfer operations,
and storage tanks.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

The affected source for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category is the facilitywide collection of
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units (MCPU),
wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer operations and
associated ancillary equipment such as heat exchange systems. The MCPU
includes equipment necessary to operate a process, equipment
components, and associated storage tanks.
The affected source for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
source category is the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations
at the facility. These operations include storage tanks, process
vessels, equipment components, wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems, transfer operations, and ancillary sources such as heat
exchange systems.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations and
Other Standards?

The proposed emission limitations and work practice standards are
in Tables 1 through 8 of the proposed subpart FFFF and Tables 1 through
7 of the proposed subpart HHHHH and are summarized below.
1. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category
We are proposing separate standards for batch and continuous
process vents. For batch process vents, the proposed standards would
require you to reduce uncontrolled HAP emissions from the sum of all
batch process vents within the process by 98 percent if uncontrolled
emissions exceed 4,540 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (10,000 pounds per
year (lb/yr)). No control of vents would be required for processes that
are limited to uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr), as
calculated on a rolling 365-day basis. A second control option that we
are proposing today for batch vents is to reduce the sum of all batch
process vents within the process by 95 percent using recovery devices.
You may also comply with the alternative standard, which requires you
to achieve specified outlet concentrations for total organic compounds
(TOC) and total hydrogen halides and halogens on a continuous basis.
Both emission limits are 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for
combustion devices, and 50 ppmv for noncombustion devices. We defined
the term ``process'' to include all equipment which collectively
functions to produce a material or family of materials that are covered
by the source category.
For continuous process vents, the proposed standards would require
control of vents determined to have a total resource effectiveness
(TRE) index equal to or less than 2.6. The proposed standards would
require you to reduce HAP emissions by at least 98 percent by weight if
the TRE of the outlet gaseous stream after the last recovery device is
above 2.6, or to reduce the outlet TOC concentration to 20 ppmv or
less. For continuous process vents, we reference the process vent
standards contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
For both continuous and batch process vents, we are proposing to
allow you to comply by combusting streams in hazardous waste
incinerators that comply with the requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or in boilers, flares, or process
heaters that meet certain design and operating requirements.
Additionally, you must also achieve less than 20 ppmv halogen or
hydrogen halide concentration if you demonstrate compliance with the 20
ppmv TOC alternative standard or the 20 ppmv TOC concentration limit
standards.
The proposed new source standards for batch and continuous process
vents follow the same formats as described above. However, the
applicability triggers are more stringent. All batch vents within a
process for which the uncontrolled emissions from batch vents exceed
1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr) must be reduced by either 98 percent using a
control device or 95 percent using a recovery device. All continuous
process vents with a TRE of less than or equal to 5.0 must be
controlled by 98 percent. The same options for control using hazardous
waste incinerators, other combustion devices, and the alternative and
concentration standards are also available for new sources.
We are proposing storage tank standards that would require existing
sources to control emissions from storage tanks having capacities
greater than or equal to 38 cubic meters (m3) (10,000
gallons (gal)) and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of
greater than 6.9 kilopascals (kPa) (1.0 pound per square inch absolute
(psia)). For new sources, the proposed standards would require control
of storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38
m3 (10,000 gal) and storing material with a HAP partial
pressure of greater than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). For both existing and new
sources, the required control would be to use a floating roof or to
reduce the organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or more.
The proposed standards for wastewater, transfer operations,
maintenance wastewater, and heat exchange systems are identical to
those required under the HON. At existing sources, control would be
required for wastewater streams with HAP listed on Table 9 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G (Table 9 HAP), if the concentration exceeds 1,000
parts per million by weight (ppmw) and the flow exceeds 10 liters per
minute (lpm), or if the concentration of Table 9 HAP exceeds

[[Page 16159]]

10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. The proposed control requirements are to
convey the wastewater streams through controlled sewers using vapor
suppression techniques to treatment where the Table 9 HAP are removed
or destroyed, thereby reducing Table 9 HAP emissions. At new sources,
the proposed conveyance and control requirements are identical to those
for existing sources, but the applicability triggers on individual
streams are more stringent. In addition to controlling streams that
meet the thresholds for existing sources, control would also be
required for streams containing HAP listed on Table 8 of 40 CFR part
63, subpart G (Table 8 HAP), if the concentration exceeds 10 ppmw and
the wastewater stream flowrate is greater than 0.02 lpm.
For transfer operations, we are proposing to require the HON level
of control for transfer racks that load greater than 0.65 million
liters per year (l/yr) (0.17 million gallons per year (gal/yr)) of
liquid products that contain organic HAP with a partial pressure of
10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Each transfer rack that meets these thresholds
would be required to be controlled to reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by 98 percent by weight or more, or to have displaced vapors
returned to the process or originating container. For sources such as
maintenance wastewater and heat exchanger systems, we are proposing to
require a plan for minimizing emissions and a monthly leak detection
program, respectively, as was done in the HON.
For equipment leaks, we are proposing to require implementation of
the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program that is contained in 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU. This LDAR program is also identical to the
program in the proposed Consolidated Air Rule (63 FR 57748, October 28,
1998). This LDAR program achieves the same reductions as the HON LDAR
program, but contains options for more directed monitoring of
components that have been identified to leak, thereby reducing the
monitoring burden relative to that of the HON LDAR program.
The proposed subpart FFFF also includes a pollution-prevention
alternative for existing sources that meets the control level of the
MACT floor and that you may implement in lieu of the emission
limitations and work practice standards described above. The pollution-
prevention alternative provides a way for facilities to comply with
MACT by reducing overall consumption of HAP in their processes;
therefore, it is not applicable for HAP that are generated in the
process. Specifically, you must demonstrate that the production-indexed
consumption of HAP has decreased by at least 65 percent from a 3-year
average baseline set no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar
years. The production-indexed consumption factor is expressed as the
mass of HAP consumed divided by the mass of product produced. The
numerator in the factor is the total consumption of the HAP, which
describes all the different areas where it can be consumed, either
through losses to the environment, consumption in the process as a
reactant, or otherwise destroyed.
Cleaning is considered part of the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process. Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be
process fluids, and you would be subject to the same process vent,
storage tank, equipment leak, and wastewater provisions when using
cleaning fluids as when using other process fluids.
2. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category
The proposed standards for coating manufacturing cover vents from
process vessels, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer operations,
equipment leaks, and ancillary heat exchange operations.
The proposed standards require both stationary and portable process
vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 0.94 m3
(250 gal) to be equipped with covers. Additionally, organic HAP
emissions from stationary vessels at existing sources are required to
be reduced by at least 75 percent by weight from an uncontrolled
baseline, in addition to the requirement for covers. Stationary and
portable vessels at new sources would be required to be equipped with
covers and to reduce organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by
weight. Alternatively, for both new and existing sources, you may use a
condenser operated at specified temperature limits.
The proposed standards for affected storage tanks at both existing
and new sources would require either organic HAP emissions reductions
of 90 percent by weight or more, or the use of floating roofs or vapor
balancing. For existing sources, affected storage tanks are those that
have capacities greater than or equal to 75 m3 (20,000 gal)
and store material with a vapor pressure of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). For
new sources, affected storage tanks are those with capacities equal to
or greater than 75 m3 (20,000 gal) but less than 94
m3 (25,000 gal) and storing material that has a vapor
pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) or greater, and tanks with capacities
greater than 94 m3 (25,000 gal) storing material that has a
vapor pressure of 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia).
For wastewater at existing sources, the proposed NESHAP would
require that wastewater containing a total organic Table 9 HAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart G) concentration of 4,000 ppmw or greater be conveyed
in controlled sewers and treated to remove or destroy organic HAP. The
compliance procedures cross referenced from part 63 allow for offsite
control of wastewaters provided the offsite source submit to EPA
written certification that the transferee will manage and treat any
affected wastewater or residual in accordance with the requirements of
the proposed NESHAP. For new sources, the applicability triggers for
control would be more stringent, affecting all streams with Table 9 HAP
concentrations greater than or equal to 2,000 ppmw.
We also note that the definition of wastewater for the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category (proposed subpart
HHHHH) differs from the definition of wastewater for proposed subpart
FFFF. This definition includes HAP-containing water, raw material,
intermediate, product, by-product, co-product, or waste material that
exits equipment in a process. This definition is being proposed to
capture waste solvent that may be generated in a process and sent to a
recovery operation. In these cases, the material exiting the process
equipment would be considered an affected wastewater stream if it met
the HAP concentration limits and therefore would be required to be
managed as such. We think that the wastewater standards are appropriate
for these streams considering that their characteristics reflect wastes
sent offsite for destruction.
Proposed standards for transfer operations would require 75 percent
control of HAP emissions from product loading to tank trucks and
railcars if the amount of material transferred contains at least 11.4
million l/yr (3.0 million gal/yr) of HAP, and the material has a HAP
partial pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia).
Acceptable control strategies also include routing displaced vapors
back to the process, or the use of condensers operated below specified
temperature limits.
As with the standards for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing, we are proposing to require the LDAR program contained
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for control of equipment leaks. For
maintenance wastewater and heat exchanger systems, we are proposing to
require a plan for

[[Page 16160]]

minimizing emissions and a monthly leak detection program,
respectively, as was done in the HON.
Cleaning operations are considered part of the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations (like mixing). Therefore, cleaning
fluids are considered to be process fluids, and the requirements for
process vessels, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and wastewater systems
that apply to other process operations also apply to cleaning
operations.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

1. Process Vents
The proposed subpart FFFF would require calculation of uncontrolled
emissions as a first step in demonstrating compliance with the 98
percent or 95 percent reduction requirement for batch process vents. If
you choose to control vents using the alternative standard or using
specified combustion devices, this initial calculation of uncontrolled
emissions is not required. For continuous process vents, the proposed
subpart FFFF would require calculation of the TRE index values using
the procedures contained in the HON for continuous process vents.
For stationary process vessels in the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing source category, you have the option of achieving a
specified condenser exit gas temperature (based on vapor pressure) in
lieu of calculating uncontrolled emissions as the first step in
demonstrating the 75 percent reduction for existing sources or 95
percent reduction for new and reconstructed sources.
To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent.
Initial compliance demonstration provisions for batch vents in
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing sources and stationary
process vessels at Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing sources
reference the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGG). Therefore, process vents control devices handling greater
than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of HAP must be tested, while engineering
assessments are allowed for control devices with lower loads and for
condensers. Performance test provisions in both source categories
consider worst-case emissions for devices controlling process vents.
For each continuous process vent with a TRE less than or equal to
2.6, compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation must be
verified through measurement (testing).
2. Storage Tanks, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater
For demonstrating compliance with various requirements, the
proposed NESHAP allow you to either conduct performance tests or
document compliance using engineering calculations. The initial
compliance demonstration procedures reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, for storage tanks complying using control devices and transfer
operations, subpart WW for storage tanks complying using floating
roofs, and subpart G for wastewater sources.
3. Equipment Leaks
To document compliance with the LDAR provisions, the proposed
NESHAP require you to demonstrate that an LDAR program meeting the
requirements of the Generic MACT in subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 is in
use.

F. What Are Continuous Compliance Provisions?

The proposed NESHAP require monitoring to determine whether you are
in compliance with emission limitations on an ongoing basis. This
monitoring is done either by continuously measuring HAP emissions
reductions or by continuously measuring a site-specific operational
parameter, the value of which you would establish during the initial
compliance demonstration. The operating parameter is defined as the
minimum or maximum value established for a control device or process
parameter that, if achieved on a daily basis by itself or in
combination with one or more other operating parameter values,
determines whether you are complying with the applicable emission
limits. These parameters are required to be monitored at 15-minute
intervals throughout the operation of the control device.
Continuous, or 15-minute monitoring, is not required for all
sources. For emission sources not equipped with control devices or
falling below applicability trigger levels, such as the 4,540 kg/yr
(10,000 lb/yr) emission limit for the sum of batch vents within a
process below which no control is required, you must monitor the number
of batches to demonstrate that you continuously fall below the yearly
emission limit. For control devices that do not control more than 1 ton
per year of HAP emissions, only a daily verification of the operating
parameter is required, as is provided in the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP. To demonstrate compliance with work practice standards, such as
the requirement to maintain floating roofs, inspection of equipment
serves as the monitoring demonstration and is required only on a
periodic (yearly) basis.

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

If you are subject to the proposed NESHAP, you would be required to
fulfill all reporting requirements outlined in the General Provisions
to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The sections of subpart A that
apply to the proposed NESHAP are designated in Table 21 of the proposed
subpart FFFF and Table 19 of the proposed subpart HHHHH. In addition,
we have included recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are
specific to these proposed NESHAP. For example, you are required to
submit a precompliance report if you choose to comply using an
alternative monitoring approach, use an engineering assessment to
demonstrate compliance, or comply using a control device handling less
than 1 ton per year of HAP emissions. Other notifications that are
required by other MACT standards, such as the Initial Notification and
the Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS), are also required by
these proposed NESHAP and are identified in Sec. 63.2540 of the
proposed subpart FFFF and Sec. 63.8070 of the proposed subpart HHHHH.
The Initial Notification is required within 120 days of the
effective date of the NESHAP. The report, which is very brief, serves
to alert appropriate agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices)
of the existence of your affected source and puts them on notice for
future compliance actions. The NOCS, which is due on the compliance
date of the NESHAP, is a comprehensive report that describes the
affected source and the strategy being used to comply. The NOCS is also
an important aspect of the title V permitting strategy for sources
subject to subpart FFFF, which is discussed in section II.H of this
preamble.

H. How Will the Proposed Subpart FFFF Be Incorporated Into Title V
Permits?

Title V requires operating permits to assure compliance with all
applicable requirements at a source, including the proposed subpart
FFFF where it applies. Most existing sources that will become subject
to the proposed subpart FFFF upon promulgation will already be

[[Page 16161]]

operating under title V operating permits (e.g., because they are major
sources of HAP or because they are subject to some other section 112
standard).
Under section 502(b)(9) of the CAA, if a Federal standard like the
proposed subpart FFFF is promulgated when 3 or more years remain on a
major source's title V permit term, the permit will need to be reopened
in order to assure compliance with the proposed subpart FFFF. Such a
reopening must be completed not later than 18 months after promulgation
of the proposed subpart FFFF (40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i)).
If fewer than 3 years remain on a title V permit term, a permitting
authority's program may reflect the option not to require revisions to
the permit to incorporate the NESHAP. Subpart FFFF would be added to
the source's title V permit at the next permit renewal, but of course
in the meantime, the source must fully comply with the proposed subpart
FFFF outside the title V permit. The CAA permits State programs to
require revisions to the permit to incorporate the NESHAP when fewer
than 3 years remain on a major source's permit term, however, so any
sources with fewer than 3 years remaining on their permits upon the
promulgation of the proposed subpart FFFF, should consult their State
permitting program regulations to determine whether revision to their
permits is necessary to incorporate the NESHAP.
The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is
similar to the Pharmaceuticals Production source category in that both
use nondedicated, multipurpose equipment that may be configured in
numerous ways to accommodate different batch processes. In addition,
both the proposed subpart FFFF and the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG) have process-based emission
limitations for batch processes. Therefore, when a permitting authority
incorporates the proposed subpart FFFF into a title V permit, the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources, like
pharmaceuticals production sources, may wish to consider requesting
that the permit set forth terms and conditions for reasonably
anticipated operating scenarios. The part 70 regulations provide for
this opportunity to allow sources to account for operating scenarios
that the source owner or operator reasonably anticipates over the
course of the permit term, without need for permit revisions (40 CFR
70.6(a)(9)). The permit would require the source, contemporaneously
with making a change from one operating scenario to another, to record
in an operating log at the facility a record of the current scenario
under which the source is operating. By minimizing the need to reopen
the permit, the part 70 alternative operating scenarios may be a
particularly useful permit strategy.

III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Emission Limitations and Work
Practice Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Categories?

As noted in section I.C of this preamble, we are creating two new
source categories from the combination of existing source categories.
These two source categories are Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
The Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category
will cover emission sources from 22 previously listed source
categories, as well as some emission sources that are not specifically
covered by other MACT standards. For example, the HON does not regulate
emissions from batch process vents. Therefore, the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category will cover these
emission sources. In specifying SIC codes, we also include SIC code 283
to include the production of any materials not already covered by the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.
In the proposed subpart FFFF, we specifically exempt by-product
ammonium sulfate manufacturing facilities at caprolactum plants and
their respective operations provided that the ammonium sulfate slurry
entering the ammonium sulfate manufacturing operation is documented to
contain 50 ppmw or less HAP and 10 ppmw or less benzene. We are
providing this exemption because these streams are considered treated
wastewater, and the ammonium sulfate production is an inorganic
chemical manufacturing process.
We also reviewed information submitted by the explosives
manufacturing industry that requested us to develop a separate
subcategory for explosives manufacturers. The industry group indicated
that the proposed control requirements for batch process vents could
place severe and unsafe restrictions on explosives and propellant
manufacturing sources because existing control technologies, especially
those technologies that can achieve 98 percent control, are unsafe.
Because the possibility exists that vents from these processes may
contain residual explosive materials, the industry contends that
thermal destruction technology cannot safely treat these emission
streams. The industry has indicated that process condensers are used to
recover HAP solvents in production processes and therefore condensation
may be a viable control technology for many sources. We recognize that
incineration is not a viable control option. Therefore, we have decided
to solicit comments on whether process vents generated in the
production of explosives, commonly referred to as ``energetics,''
should be treated as a separate class of emission streams subject to a
lesser degree of control corresponding to that achievable using
condensers (or other controls). We are also soliciting comments on
whether the condenser outlet gas temperature defaults that are being
proposed for coatings manufacturing would be appropriate for this
industry, and we are soliciting comments on what the definition of
``energetics'' should be. Note that this discussion does not extend to
other emission sources in the explosives industry, such as storage
tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks. These
emission points will be regulated in the same manner as for other
processes in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source
category.
The Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category is much
narrower in applicability than the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing source category. Process emission sources are vessels
used to mix and transfer materials used to make coatings. Coatings
include paints, inks, adhesives, and sealants and are generally
described under SIC codes 285 and 289, although the NESHAP also apply
to the manufacture of any coatings that do not fall under these SIC
codes. However, other operations within the SIC Code 285 (SIC 2851
(NAICS 32551)--paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and allied
products) and SIC Code 289 (SIC 2891 (NAICS 32552)--adhesives and
sealants) that involve chemical reactions are covered by the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category; for
example, the manufacture of a latex resin in a chemical reaction prior
to its use as a raw material to manufacture a paint would be covered by
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing standards.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

Most industrial plants consist of numerous pieces or groups of
equipment that emit HAP and that may be viewed as emission ``sources.''

[[Page 16162]]

Therefore, we use the term ``affected source'' to designate equipment
within a particular kind of plant chosen as the ``source'' covered by
the proposed NESHAP. For today's proposed Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP, we are defining the affected source as
the collection of MCPU and associated equipment, such as heat exchange
systems, wastewater conveyance and treatment systems, and transfer
operations within a plant site that is a major source. The MCPU
definition within the affected source definition also includes specific
emission sources that are exempt from other MACT standards, such as
batch vents from the HON chemical manufacturing process units.
We are proposing to define the affected source for the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category as the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations, or the collection of
equipment necessary to formulate coatings, including inks, paints,
sealants, and adhesives at a plant site that is a major source. The
affected source includes equipment such as heat exchange systems,
wastewater conveyance and treatment systems, and transfer operations.
Within each affected source, we identified the following five types
of HAP emission points: process vents, storage tanks, transfer
operations, equipment leaks, and wastewater.

C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?

According to the CAA, the MACT floor for existing sources is
defined as ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of sources (for which the Administrator has
emissions information).'' We interpreted the term ``average'' in 59 FR
29196 as a measure of the ``central tendency of a data set.'' The
central tendency may be represented by the arithmetic mean, median, or
some other measure that is reasonable. The MACT floors for the proposed
NESHAP are based on the central tendency for each emission source type,
using available data. In some cases, we use the arithmetic mean to
identify the floor control level and in other cases, we use the median.
Generally, we prefer to use the arithmetic mean if sufficient data
points exist and if the resulting performance level corresponds to an
available control technology. However, if data are insufficient to
determine an arithmetic mean or if the result does not yield a
performance level that corresponds to an available control technology,
we use the median.
1. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category?
The MACT floors for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing source category were developed using data that were
collected from facilities during 1997 and from existing available data
located in EPA and State databases. Clean Air Act section 114
information collection requests (ICR) were sent to 194 facilities in
the spring of 1997. The facilities which received the ICR were
identified from EPA's 1993 toxic release inventory (TRI) database which
included information on facilities in SIC codes 282, 284, 286, 287,
289, or 386. Information on continuous processes came from emissions
and permit databases from the following States: Texas, Louisiana, North
Carolina, Illinois, Missouri, California, and New Jersey. Components of
the MACT floor were calculated separately for process vents, storage
tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks consistent
with the ``plank'' methodology developed in the HON (57 FR 62627,
December 31, 1992) and are discussed below.
a. Process Vents. For process vents, we reviewed information on
both batch process vents and continuous process vents. To be consistent
with formats in previous MACT standards, we grouped data for batch
vents according to all vents within a process. The floor for batch
vents was determined for the process, similar to the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP. For continuous process vents, we evaluated data on a
single vent-by-vent basis, as was done in the HON. We chose the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP as the model for the format of the
batch vent standard in the proposed subpart FFFF because it works well
for multipurpose equipment, fits well into the definition of operating
scenario, and works best for pollution prevention. For continuous
vents, we modeled the standard formats on the HON because the
continuous vents in this source category are not expected to differ
significantly in characteristics from those covered by the HON, and
other regulations such as the new source performance standards (NSPS)
in 40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN, III, RRR, and DDD, which all require
control based on characterization using a TRE index on individual
process vents.
To evaluate the MACT floor for batch process vents, we started with
the database generated from responses to the 1997 ICR. We summed batch
vents to calculate the mass of emissions, on an uncontrolled basis, for
each process as reported in the ICR responses. We then sorted the
processes based on control efficiency and uncontrolled HAP emissions,
ranking all processes controlled in order of increasing uncontrolled
emissions. The practical limit for control efficiency that would be
achievable by devices in this industry is 98 percent. Since greater
than 12 percent of processes were controlled to 98 percent, processes
with the lowest uncontrolled emissions are best performing. The
resulting database contained 731 processes at 144 facilities. The
number of processes making up the best 12 percent was 88. We determined
that the median performance level represented the central tendency of
the top processes since HAP emission values for the top performing
facilities represented a skewed distribution over a large range. The
median process had 4,480 kg/yr (9,860 lb/yr) of uncontrolled HAP
emissions. Based on this process, the MACT floor was set at 98 percent
for processes with uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/
yr).
For the new source MACT floor for batch process vents, we
identified the batch process representing the best controlled similar
source to have uncontrolled HAP emissions of approximately 1,360 kg/yr
(3,000 lb/yr). It is controlled with a thermal incinerator. Therefore,
we selected the new source MACT floor to be 98 percent control for all
processes with uncontrolled HAP emissions greater than or equal to
1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr).
The MACT floor for continuous process vents was determined in a
manner similar to what was done in the development of the HON. We used
TRE values for individual process vents as a measure of the level of
control. The TRE calculation uses inputs such as stream flow rate and
HAP concentration to produce an index value. Streams have high TRE
values primarily because of low HAP concentration. As a starting point,
we used existing data that had been collected from State agency permit
files. This database includes 240 vent streams from 61 processes for
which TRE values could be calculated. We calculated TRE values using
information on the stream characteristics including flowrate, volatile
organic compounds (VOC) content, and HAP content. We then identified
all streams that were controlled to 98 percent or better. From the TRE
values and the control efficiencies, we identified a threshold TRE
value for each facility below which

[[Page 16163]]

all streams were controlled. Facilities with the highest TRE threshold
values are considered the best performing facilities. There are 44
facilities in the floor analysis, but only 17 with thresholds (the
remainder of the facilities did not control their stream with the
lowest TRE). Since TRE values for the top performing facilities
represent an even distribution over a limited value range, it was
determined that the average TRE value best represented the central
tendency. The average TRE threshold for the top 12 percent of the
facilities is 2.6. Therefore, the MACT floor at existing sources is 98
percent control for all continuous process vents with a TRE less than
or equal to 2.6. The TRE threshold for each facility was also used to
determine the best performing facility. That facility is controlling
all continuous process vents with a TRE of 5.0 or less at a level of 98
percent. Therefore, this is the MACT floor for new sources.
b. Storage Tanks. In developing the MACT floor for storage tanks,
we again used the CAA section 114 information database. Approximately
16 percent of storage tanks are reported to be equipped with a floating
roof or a control device achieving a HAP reduction efficiency of 95
percent or more. As recognized in several NESHAP and NSPS, floating
roofs are equivalent to 95 percent control. To determine the
appropriate vapor pressure threshold for the MACT floor level of
performance, we identified a partial pressure threshold at each
facility above which all tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to
38 m\3\ (10,000 gal) at the facility were controlled to the MACT floor
level. The top 12 percent of the 128 facilities in the tanks database
correspond to the top 14 facilities. The average threshold value for
the top 12 percent of facilities is a HAP partial pressure of 1 psia
(rounded up from 0.88 psia). The average, rather than the median, was
chosen because the average value best represented the different HAP
stored, and thus represented the central tendency of the data set.
The new source MACT floor for storage tanks was determined to be
floating roof technology or 95 percent control since this level of
control represents the best level of control in the source category. As
with the existing source MACT floor, applicability cutoffs for the new
source MACT floor are established based on the smallest tanks storing
material with the lowest partial pressures since the emission potential
of tanks generally decreases with capacity and vapor pressure of stored
material. Therefore, the facility controlling the smallest tanks with
the lowest vapor pressure materials in the source category represents
the best controlled source. The MACT floor for new sources consists of
floating roof technology or 95 percent control of all tanks with a
capacity greater than or equal to 38 m\3\ that store material with a
HAP partial pressure of 0.1 psia, based on the facility that applied
controls to all tanks storing materials with a vapor pressure at or
above 0.087 psia (rounded to 0.1 psia).
c. Wastewater. For wastewater streams, we also set the MACT floor
using data collected from the industry. After excluding all but Table 9
HAP, the database contains 363 streams at 60 facilities that have Table
9 HAP concentrations of at least 1,000 ppmw. A total of 184 of these
streams at 44 facilities meet the HON cutoffs (i.e., streams of any
flowrate that contain at least 10,000 ppmw of Table 9 HAP compounds,
and streams with a flowrate of at least 10 lpm that contain at least
1,000 ppmw of Table 9 HAP compounds). Because more than 12 percent of
the streams that meet the cutoff are controlled to the level of the
HON, we therefore concluded that the MACT floor consists of the HON
level of control and the HON cutoffs.
In establishing the new source MACT floor for wastewater, we
concluded that the HON new source MACT floor also applies to the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category. It is not
possible to identify at least one stream in the database that meets HON
new source applicability levels of 0.02 lpm and 10 ppmw Table 8 HAP
because we did not ask for data on wastewater streams with less than
1,000 ppmw Table 9 HAP. However, based on our knowledge of the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry, we have
concluded that the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems used to
convey and control HON-affected wastewaters also convey and control
affected wastewaters in this source category; therefore, a floor exists
based on the colocation of HON and miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing affected sources. The new source floor should be no less
stringent than the MACT level of control for new HON sources. This is
also the most stringent requirement contained in any other NESHAP,
including the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF), and we would expect that a similar colocation argument could be
made regarding overlap of these requirements for wastewater conveyance
and control with affected miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
sources. The colocation rationale for both wastewater new source MACT
floor and the MACT floors for existing and new source transfer
operations is further discussed in the next section.
d. Transfer Operations. Standards for loading operations regulate
the transfer of materials containing HAP. Although the products of
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources are not expected
to contain HAP, generally, it is possible that products will be
transferred in solutions of HAP. Therefore, there is a need to
establish requirements for loading operations for the source category.
In our data gathering effort, we did not collect information on
transfer operations. Therefore, we established the floors and
regulatory alternatives based on existing available data.
We decided to base the transfer requirements for the proposed
NESHAP on the transfer requirements contained in the HON. The rationale
for this decision is based on the fact that the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing source category is closely related to the HON
source category in equipment, emission sources, and operations; and we
believe a floor exists from colocation of miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing sources at HON facilities. Many facilities with
HON applicability also contain processes which will be regulated by the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP. Additionally,
there are circumstances where applicability to these proposed standards
will overlap with the HON; for example, the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP will cover vents from batch unit
operations that are part of HON chemical manufacturing process units
(CMPU), therefore products from HON and miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing sources may be loaded at the same rack.
Based on a review of facilities in Texas and Louisiana, we found
that approximately 60 percent of facilities containing processes
subject to the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP also
contain processes subject to the HON. Assuming that these States are
representative and that the colocation assumption is valid, then the
MACT floor for transfer operations is based on the requirements of the
HON, which is 98 percent control for loading racks with a throughput
greater than or equal to 0.65 million liters per year (0.17 million
gallons per year) at a rack-weighted HAP partial pressure greater than
or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). In selecting this floor, we also
stress that the selection of the same

[[Page 16164]]

requirements will streamline the compliance process for those colocated
MON processes since only one set of requirements will apply for
transfer operations.
e. Equipment Leaks. The MACT floor level of performance for
equipment leaks is an LDAR program for equipment components. We
estimate that the HON LDAR program will reduce HAP emissions by 63 to
75 percent for continuous chemical processes and 70 to 73 percent for
batch chemical processes. We determined that several LDAR programs
implemented by Texas and Louisiana are roughly equivalent to the HON
LDAR program when applied to continuous chemical processes.
Approximately 33 percent of facilities with continuous and batch
chemical processes were reported to implement some type of structured
LDAR program for equipment components. The top performing 12 percent of
facilities were determined by rank ordering all facilities by the LDAR
program and overall effectiveness in descending order. The top 12
percent of the 229 facilities in the database correspond to 28
facilities. We found that 30 facilities implement an LDAR program that
reduces emissions equivalent to the HON program. Therefore, we set the
floor at the HON LDAR program.
Because we wanted to maintain consistency with other Federal rules,
we are referencing the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
Implementing subpart UU achieves the same level of control as
implementing the HON subpart H program. However, the subpart UU program
significantly reduces the burden associated with monitoring valves and
connectors without increasing emissions.
2. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing Source Category?
a. Process Vessels. In developing the MACT floor for this source
category, we made a distinction between portable and stationary process
tanks. This distinction was made because of the feasibility of
controlling each type of vessel and observed industry practices with
respect to each type of vessel. Stationary tanks tend to be larger in
capacity and are more easily adaptable to add-on control devices. In
contrast, portable tanks do not lend themselves to add-on control as
easily.
The MACT floor level of performance for portable process vessels is
the emission reduction achieved by the use of a fixed or removable
cover. Based on industry survey results, approximately 92 percent of
portable vessels (2,783 vessels) are equipped with covers, but only 3
percent of portable vessels are reportedly equipped with any type of
control device. Therefore, the MACT floor was determined to be covers
only. For stationary vessels, we determined the MACT floor to be the
emission reduction achieved by the use of a fixed or removable cover
that vents to a control device. As with portable tanks, most
(approximately 98 percent) of the stationary process vessels are
equipped with a cover. Another 8 percent of these vessels were also
reported to be controlled with an add-on device. The top 12 percent of
4,628 stationary vessels correspond to 555 tanks. Of these, 368 vessels
were reported to be equipped with both a cover and an add-on control
device. The average control efficiency of these control devices is 60
percent (rounded up from 57 percent). During the data analysis, we
determined that the average performance level did represent the central
tendency of the top facilities, as control device efficiencies
represented a fairly even distribution. Therefore, we set the MACT
floor for stationary vessels to be 60 percent control, as achieved by a
cover and closed vent to a control device achieving 60 percent control.
b. Storage Tanks. According to the ICR survey data, only 18 of the
453 storage tanks in the database were equipped with control devices.
Therefore, because we did not identify any means by which sources are
currently reducing emissions that is sufficiently widespread to
constitute a MACT floor, we are not establishing a MACT floor for
storage tanks at existing sources in the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing source category.
For new sources, the MACT floor consists of 90 percent control for
storage tanks with a capacity ³94 m\3\ (³25,000
gal) that store a material with a HAP partial pressure ³0.7
kPa (³0.1 psia) and 90 percent control for tanks with a
capacity 75 m\3\ (20,000 gal) and 94 m\3\ (25,000 gal) that store
material with a HAP partial pressure ³10.3 kPa
(³1.5 psia). Applicability cutoffs are established based on
the smallest tanks storing material with the lowest partial pressures.
This floor is based on the practices of one facility that has a 94 m\3\
(25,000 gal) tank storing 100 percent xylene, which has a partial
pressure of 0.76 kPa (0.11 psia), and a 20,000 gal tank storing 100
percent methyl ethyl ketone, which has a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa
(1.5 psia) (assuming a temperature of 20 deg.C for both tanks). These
tanks are the best performing tanks because they are all controlled to
the best level of control in the source category (i.e., 90 percent).
c. Wastewater. In selecting MACT for wastewater, we did not follow
the same convention as previous analyses for other NESHAP that assumed
that the total quantity of generated wastewater, in addition to HAP
concentration, would determine treatment options. The use of both
flowrate and concentration to identify streams for control is based on
the assumption that the cost and effectiveness of controls depend on
both the concentration of HAP in the wastewater and the quantity of
wastewater generated. This is a reasonable assumption for facilities
that treat wastes on site, such as facilities that steam strip
wastewater onsite. However, for small quantity generators such as the
coating manufacturing facilities, the need for treatment is driven by
the characteristics of the wastewater, not the flow rate. If they
cannot discharge to a publicly owned treatment works because of their
wastewater characteristics, they typically drum their wastewater and
send it offsite for treatment. As a result, the unit cost of treatment
(i.e., dollars per megagram of HAP reduced) is directly related to the
characteristics of the wastewater (e.g., the HAP concentration), not
the flow rate.
Because the total quantity of wastewater generated is not
significant in determining the unit cost of treatment, we propose to
set the MACT floor for this industry segment based only on HAP
concentration and not flowrate. Based on the data from the industry,
the MACT floor for existing sources would be set based on a
concentration of 4,000 ppmw, representing the median concentration of
controlled streams from the industry, while the MACT floor for new
sources would be set based on a concentration of 2,000 ppmw, which
corresponds to the lowest HAP concentration that is controlled. These
requirements are based on the practices of nine facilities that
reported information regarding wastewater on ten streams. Five of the
ten wastewater streams were reported as being controlled, and all were
controlled by being drummed and incinerated because they were also RCRA
wastes. Thus, the control level was considered to be equivalent to that
required by the HON.
d. Transfer Operations. In the data gathering effort for this
project, no data were requested regarding transfer operations.
Therefore, we relied on other available information to set the MACT
floors. In the absence of data specific for individual coating
manufacturers, we reviewed several State rules to determine the minimum
level of control that would apply to

[[Page 16165]]

transfer operations at facilities in those States. At a minimum, those
rules require 90 percent control of operations where greater than 75
m\3\/day (20,000 gal/day), which equates to 27.6 million 1/yr (7.3
million gal/yr), of VOC having vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia)
or more are transferred. These requirements are typically applied to
bulk loading into transport vessels such as tank trucks and railcars.
For other containers, such as totes and drums, those rules typically do
not apply.
Transfer operations at coating manufacturing facilities result from
the loading of transport vessels as well as other containers. However,
because we are not aware of any existing rules that apply to the
loading of these containers, we are not establishing a MACT floor for
existing transfer operations at coating manufacturing facilities.
For new sources we conducted a telephone survey of facilities
identified in the database to have high HAP throughputs based on the
ICR responses for storage tanks. We were unable to identify any
facilities that control emissions from bulk loading operations. Because
we did not identify any means by which facilities currently are
controlling emissions from such operations, we are not establishing a
MACT floor for new sources in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
source category.
e. Equipment Leaks. We determined that the MACT floor for equipment
components is a monthly sensory LDAR program equivalent to the Bulk
Gasoline Terminal NESHAP. We based this determination on survey data
from the industry that showed that the top performing 12 percent, which
consisted of the best 15 of 127 facilities in the database, reported
monthly sensory LDAR programs that were considered equivalent to the
Bulk Gasoline Terminal NESHAP. Fourteen of the 15 facilities used
monthly sensory LDAR programs, while only one facility used a Method 21
monitoring-based LDAR program. We did not consider the one facility
representative of the industry. Therefore, we also determined the new
source MACT floor to be a monthly sensory program.
3. How Did We Consider Beyond-the-Floor Technology for the Source
Categories?
The CAA states that MACT must be the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that is achievable for sources in the source category and
shall be no less stringent than the MACT floor. Therefore, we also
evaluate options more stringent than the MACT floor in determining what
is achievable. These options are discussed below.
a. Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category.
For existing sources, we identified options beyond the MACT floor for
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points. We did
not develop more stringent options than the floor for equipment leaks
or transfer operations. For equipment leaks, the HON LDAR program is
the most stringent program available, and, therefore, there were no
above-the-floor options to consider. For transfer operations, we did
not consider a beyond-the-floor option because we did not have
industry-specific data indicating the existence of any above-the-floor
option and because of the high level of control (98 percent) required
to meet the MACT floor. We do not believe there are any beyond-the-
floor options for which the cost would be reasonable. For process
vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, the required performance levels
(e.g., 98 percent control for process vents) are the same as for the
MACT floor. However, the applicability criteria for the beyond-the-
floor options are more stringent, requiring the installation of
controls on a larger group of affected sources.
For batch process vents, the beyond-the-floor regulatory
alternative is the control of all batch vents within a process with
uncontrolled emissions of 2,270 kg/yr (5,000 lb/yr) (the MACT floor
requires control of all batch vents within each process with
uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr)). The 2,270 kg/yr
value was selected for the alternative because it represents the
midpoint between the MACT floor value and no cutoff. A cutoff is
necessary because the required performance level is high (98 percent)
and some allowance for less cost effective or difficult to control
vents should be available.
For continuous process vents, our regulatory alternative
applicability level is a TRE of 5.0 (the MACT floor TRE is 2.6). This
level also coincides with the new source MACT floor and is an
indication that the level is technically feasible to achieve since at
least one facility in the industry is currently controlling a stream(s)
with this TRE.
For storage tanks, the beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative
vapor pressure applicability is greater than or equal to 3.4 kPa (0.5
psia), as opposed to the MACT floor vapor pressure applicability of
greater than or equal to 6.9 kPa (1.0 psia). The capacity applicability
remains at 38 m\3\ (10,000 gal), the size of a small storage tank. An
applicability cutoff in terms of vapor pressure is reasonable so that
nonvolatile materials are not required to be controlled. Therefore, we
selected a vapor pressure cutoff halfway between the MACT floor
applicability cutoff and zero.
For wastewater, we developed a beyond-the-floor option that changed
one of the two sets of applicability criteria relative to the MACT
floor. This option has flowrate and concentration applicability cutoffs
of 1 lpm and 500 ppmw (the MACT floor is 10 lpm and 1,000 ppmw). We
developed an option based on these applicability criteria to be
consistent with the applicability cutoffs provided in the Wastewater
NSPS (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYY). The beyond-the-floor option also
includes the same applicability cutoffs of 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate
as for the MACT floor.
For new sources, we did not develop beyond-the-floor options for
process vents, transfer operations, and storage tanks because the new
source floors are already more stringent than either the floor or a
beyond-the-floor option for existing sources for which costs were
reasonable. For equipment leaks, we did not develop a beyond-the-floor
regulatory alternative because the subpart H program is already the
most stringent program. For wastewater, we developed a beyond-the-floor
option that combines the same performance level as the floor with the
most stringent applicability cutoffs of both the new source floor and
the beyond-the-floor option for existing sources. Thus, the
applicability cutoffs for this option consist of 10,000 ppmw of Table 9
HAP at any flow rate, 500 ppmw of Table 9 HAP at flow rates greater
than 1 lpm, and 10 ppmw of Table 8 HAP at flow rates greater than 0.02
lpm.
b. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category. We
developed beyond-the-floor options, or regulatory alternatives, for all
five types of emission points at existing sources and for equipment
leaks and transfer operations at new sources. These options are
described below. We did not develop beyond-the-floor options for
process vessels, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points at new
sources because the new source floors are already more stringent than
either the floor or a beyond-the-floor option for existing sources for
which costs were reasonable.
For stationary process vessels, we evaluated regulatory
alternatives beyond-the-floor based on a higher level of control, 75
percent reduction, rather than the 60 percent reduction established in
the MACT floor. For portable process vessels, we evaluated the same
alternative as for stationary vessels. We evaluated the 75 percent

[[Page 16166]]

control level based on our knowledge of the predominant HAP in the
industry and the emission stream characteristics from process vessels.
We believe that the 75 percent reduction is achievable with the use of
condensers, and this alternative represents a cost effective and
environmentally sound strategy that results in lower secondary impacts
than other strategies such as incineration.
For storage tanks, we evaluated two regulatory alternatives, both
with a performance level of 90 percent (or the use of an internal
floating roof or external floating roof), which is consistent with the
highest performance level at an existing source. We selected a partial
pressure cutoff of 1.9 psia and a tank capacity of 75 m\3\ (20,000 gal)
for one option because these are common cutoffs used in many other
NESHAP. We also developed a second regulatory alternative with a lower
capacity cutoff of 38 m\3\ (10,000 gal) and the same partial pressure
cutoff of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia).
For wastewater existing sources, the beyond-the-floor option
includes the same suppression and treatment requirements as the MACT
floor, but the applicability cutoff was reduced from 4,000 ppmw to
2,000 ppmw. This lower concentration corresponds with the lowest
concentration in a controlled wastewater stream at an existing facility
in the source category, and it is one of the lowest concentrations in
any wastewater stream in the source category.
For transfer operations, we developed a beyond-the-floor option for
both existing and new sources that requires at least 75 percent control
of HAP emissions from bulk loading of products with a HAP vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and a throughput
greater than or equal to 11.4 million 1/yr (3.0 million gal/yr).
Emissions from bulk loading exhibit the same characteristics as
emissions from the transfer of materials in process vessels (i.e., they
result from displacement of gases during filling and are assumed to be
saturated emission streams that can be effectively controlled using
condensers). The 75 percent control requirement is achievable using
condensers on these streams. Therefore, we developed this regulatory
alternative to be consistent with the regulatory alternative for
stationary process vessels so that the facility could use the same
control for both types of emission points.
For equipment leaks, the beyond-the-floor option for both new and
existing sources is the HON LDAR program. This program is the most
stringent program in practice.
4. How Did We Select the Standards?
We selected the proposed standards for both source categories based
on our evaluation of the floors and regulatory alternatives discussed
above. When evaluating the more stringent options, we consider the
costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements that accompany the expected emissions reductions. This
rationale is discussed below.
a. Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category.
The proposed standards for equipment leaks and transfer operations at
both new and existing sources, and the standards for process vents and
storage tanks at new sources, are based on the MACT floor because no
beyond-the-floor option was developed. When a beyond-the-floor option
was developed (i.e., for process vents and storage tanks at existing
sources and wastewater at both new and existing sources), we evaluated
the incremental impacts of going beyond the MACT floor.
For continuous process vents at existing sources, we concluded that
the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable
in light of the HAP emission reductions achieved. Specifically, the
incremental HAP reduction achieved by the above-the-floor option is 50
Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $61,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The
incremental electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 3.5
million kwh/yr (an average increase of 58,000 kwh/yr for an estimated
60 facilities with additional vents subject to control under the above-
the-floor option). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist
flares is 45 million lb/yr (about 750,000 lb/yr/facility). The
incremental fuel energy for natural gas (to operate incinerators and
flares and to generate steam) and coal to generate the electricity is
about 500 billion Btu/yr (about 8.3 billion Btu/yr/facility). Total
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO_X), and sulfur
dioxide (SO₂) emissions from the combustion of these fuels
would increase by about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid
waste impacts. We concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-
floor option would be unreasonable compared to the HAP emissions
reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for continuous
process vents at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.
For batch process vents at existing sources, we also concluded that
the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable
in light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. The incremental HAP
reduction achieved by the above-the-floor option is 145 Mg/yr, and the
incremental cost is $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental
electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 5.1 million kwh/
yr (an average increase of 135,000 kwh/yr for an estimated 38
facilities with additional vents subject to control under the above-
the-floor option). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist
flares is 6.0 million lb/yr (about 160,000 lb/yr/facility). The
incremental fuel energy for natural gas (to operate incinerators and
flares and to generate steam) and coal to generate the electricity is
about 340 billion Btu/yr (about 9.0 billion Btu/yr/facility). Total CO,
NO_X, and SO₂ emissions from the combustion of
these fuels would increase by about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no
wastewater or solid waste impacts. We concluded that the total impacts
of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable compared to the HAP
emissions reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for
batch process vents at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.
We reached a similar conclusion for storage tanks at existing
sources. For such storage tanks, the incremental HAP reduction achieved
by the above-the-floor option is 30 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is
$19,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity and fuel
consumption rates for storage tanks controlled with condensers at
existing sources are 15,000 kwh/yr and 145 million Btu/yr, respectively
(about 1,500 kwh/yr/tank and 14.5 million Btu/yr/tank, respectively);
there would be no environmental impacts or energy requirements for
other storage tanks controlled with floating roofs. The total CO,
NO_X, and SO₂ emissions from fuel combustion would
increase by only about 0.1 Mg/yr. We concluded that the total impacts
of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable in light of the HAP
emissions reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for
storage tanks at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.
Finally, we concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor
for wastewater at existing sources would be unreasonable compared to
the HAP emissions reductions achieved. For wastewater, the incremental
HAP reduction for the above-the-floor option is 400 Mg/yr, and the
incremental cost is about $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. Additional
wastewater streams at 24 existing facilities would be subject to the
treatment requirements under the above-the-floor option. The
incremental electricity and steam consumption rates to comply with
these requirements, per facility, are about 47,000 kwh/yr and 8.3

[[Page 16167]]

million lb/yr, respectively. Incremental fuel consumption to generate
the electricity and steam is about 13 billion Btu/yr/facility. Total
CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions from the fuel
combustion would increase by 33 Mg/yr. We concluded that the total
impacts for the above-the-floor option for existing sources would be
unreasonable. Therefore, the proposed standard for wastewater at
existing sources is based on the MACT floor.
For wastewater at new sources, the differences between the above-
the-floor option and the MACT floor are the same as for existing
sources. Therefore, we also concluded that the incremental impacts of
the above-the-floor option for new sources would be unreasonable, and
the proposed standard for wastewater at new sources is based on the
MACT floor.
The proposed standards apply to cleaning as well as actual
production steps because we understand that vessel cleaning is integral
to the process. This is consistent with operations in other industries
with batch processes such as pharmaceuticals production. We are
soliciting comments on cleaning procedures, emissions from cleaning,
and any additional costs of controlling emissions from cleaning as part
of the process.
b. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category. For the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category, we decided to
propose the regulatory alternatives identified as above-the-floor for
stationary process vessels at existing sources, storage tanks at
existing sources, and transfer operations and equipment leaks at both
new and existing sources. In these cases, we found that the incremental
cost and non-air quality environmental impacts and energy requirements
of going above the MACT floors are acceptable. By contrast, for
stationary process vessels, portable process vessels, storage tanks,
and wastewater at new sources, we are proposing standards based on the
MACT floor because we determined that either the MACT floor itself is
based on a very high level of control or the MACT floor requirements
are more stringent than existing source regulatory alternatives for
which incremental costs and other impacts were not acceptable.
Similarly, for wastewater at existing sources, we are proposing
standards based on the MACT floor because we determined that the
incremental costs and other impacts to go above the MACT floor were not
acceptable.
For stationary process vessels at existing sources, we concluded
that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option were reasonable.
For such stationary process vessels, we found that going from the cover
plus a 60 percent control device to the cover plus a 75 percent control
device reduces HAP emissions by nearly 1,700 Mg/yr and reduces annual
costs by $80/Mg of HAP controlled. Assuming the control levels for both
the MACT floor and the above-the-floor option are achieved using
condensers, incremental electricity consumption is about 2.7 million
kwh/yr (an average increase of approximately 31,000 kwh/yr per
facility). To generate this electricity, fuel consumption (coal) is
estimated to increase by 26.6 billion Btu/yr, and total CO,
NO_X, and SO₂ emissions are estimated to increase
by less than 23 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste
impacts. Thus, we selected the regulatory alternative as the proposed
standard for stationary vessels at existing sources. The proposed
standard for stationary vessels at new sources is based on the MACT
floor, which consists of a cover and an add-on control device that
reduces HAP emissions by at least 95 percent because, as described
above, we did not develop a more stringent option.
For portable process vessels at existing sources we concluded that
the total impacts of the above-the floor option were unreasonable in
light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Specifically, going
from the MACT floor (a cover) to a cover plus a control device
achieving 75 percent reduction reduces HAP emissions by about 400 Mg/
yr. Assuming the control device is a condenser, the incremental cost is
approximately $21,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, electricity
consumption to operate refrigeration units would increase from zero at
the MACT floor to more than 900,000 kwh/yr (an average increase of
about 11,000 kwh/yr/facility for an estimated 85 facilities with
portable process vessels subject to additional control under the above-
the-floor option). Fuel consumption (coal) to generate the electricity
would increase by more than 9.0 billion Btu/yr; collectively, CO,
NO_X, and SO₂ emissions would increase by 8 Mg/yr.
There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. We concluded that
the total impacts for this option were unreasonable. Therefore, we
selected the MACT floor as the proposed standard for portable process
vessels at existing sources. The proposed standard for portable vessels
at new sources also is based on the MACT floor, which consists of a
cover and an add-on control device capable of reducing HAP emissions by
at least 95 percent because, as described above, we did not develop a
more stringent option.
For storage tanks at existing sources, we found the impacts of the
first above-the-floor option, which requires control of tanks greater
than or equal to 75 m3 (20,000 gal) storing material with a
vapor pressure greater than or equal to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia), to be
reasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. This
option reduces emissions by 2.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700
to $4,900 per Mg of HAP controlled, depending on the characteristics of
the tanks. In addition, because the above-the-floor option can be
achieved using floating roofs, there are no non-air quality
environmental impacts or energy requirements. However, we found the
second option, which would have required control of all tanks having a
capacity of at least 38 m3 at the same vapor pressure
applicability cutoff, has incremental costs of more than $17,000/Mg of
HAP controlled. There would also be increased non-HAP environmental
impacts and energy requirements to operate condensers to control
emissions from the tanks with capacities between 38 m3 and
75 m3; we did not quantify these impacts. Therefore, we
selected the option that requires control of tanks with capacities
greater than or equal to 75 m3 storing material with a vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 1.9 psia as the proposed standard for
storage tanks at existing sources. By contrast, the proposed standard
for storage tanks at new sources is based on the MACT floor because, as
described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.
For wastewater at existing sources, we concluded that the impacts
of the above-the-floor regulatory option were unreasonable compared to
the HAP emissions reductions achieved. For wastewater at existing
sources, the above-the-floor regulatory option is the control of all
streams with a total HAP concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw (the
MACT floor was 4,000 ppmw). For the impacts analysis, we assumed that
the required treatment would be achieved using a steam stripper or by
sending the wastewater offsite for treatment, depending on the quantity
generated. We estimated that the above-the-floor option would require
treatment by one additional facility and reduce HAP emissions by less
than 0.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of more than $200,000/Mg of HAP
controlled. In addition, electricity consumption would increase by
about 700 kwh/yr; steam consumption would increase by 120,000 lb/yr;
energy to generate the electricity and steam would increase by 180
million Btu/yr; and total CO, NO_X, and

[[Page 16168]]

SO₂ emissions would increase by 0.02 Mg/yr of HAP
controlled. There may also be solid waste impacts if condensed steam
and pollutants from the steam stripper cannot be reused. We concluded
that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were
unreasonable. Therefore, we are proposing that the standard for
wastewater at existing sources be based on the MACT floor. The proposed
standard for wastewater at new sources is also based on the MACT floor
(i.e, the HON suppression and treatment requirements for all streams
with a total HAP concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw) because, as
described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.
For transfer operations, we found that the total impacts of the
above-the floor option were reasonable in light of the HAP emissions
reductions achieved. Specifically, the above-the-floor option would
reduce HAP emissions by about 37 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of less
than $3,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, under the above-the-
floor option, operation of a refrigeration unit at one existing
facility would increase electricity consumption by about 2,150 kwh/yr;
increase energy consumption by 21 million Btu/yr; and increase total
CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions by less than 0.02 Mg/
yr. There would be no non-air environmental impacts. We concluded that
the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were reasonable.
Therefore, for both new and existing sources, we are proposing that the
emission limitation be based on the above-the-floor option which would
require at least 75 percent control of HAP emissions from bulk loading
of products with a HAP throughput greater than or equal to 11.4 million
1/yr (3.0 million gal/yr) and a weighted HAP partial pressure greater
than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia).
For equipment leaks, our model analysis indicates that implementing
an above-the-floor option consisting of a HON-equivalent LDAR program
instead of the sensory program determined to be the floor would reduce
HAP emissions by 360 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700/Mg of HAP
controlled. In addition, there are no environmental impacts or energy
requirements associated with implementing the above-the-floor option.
We concluded that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were
reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing that the standard for equipment
leaks for both existing and new sources be based on the HON LDAR
program or the equivalent program in the Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU).
The proposed standards for cleaning operations are the same as for
any other process operation because controls implemented while cleaning
are the same as for normal process operation. This is consistent with
batch operations in other industries such as for pharmaceuticals
production. For example, the MACT floor for stationary process vessels
is based on controls. Cleaning operations are part of the floor because
we understand that if emissions are controlled while mixing raw
materials, then emissions are also controlled during cleaning.
Therefore, we concluded that cleaning operations should also be
included in the regulatory alternative for process vessels. Similarly,
we based the MACT floor for wastewater treatment on discharges of
cleaning fluids. In fact, all of our wastewater data from coatings
manufacturing is from cleaning operations. We are soliciting comments
on cleaning procedures, emissions from cleaning, and any additional
costs of controlling emissions from cleaning as part of the process.

D. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

The MACT standards proposed today are presented in numerous
formats. The discussion below describes the information we considered
in selecting these formats. The requirements for storage tanks,
transfer operations, wastewater, and equipment leaks follow formats
similar to formats used in other regulations, enabling some
streamlining of requirements in cases where facilities must comply with
multiple regulations.
For storage tanks, the proposed standards follow the same format as
in other Federal regulations. The format of the standards for storage
tanks is a combination of work practice standard and emission
limitation--tanks which require control must either be fitted with
floating roofs or vented to add-on control devices meeting a percent
removal requirement. These formats allow the owner operator maximum
flexibility to comply by using an add-on control device while
maintaining a simple option to comply using a work practice standard.
Work practice standards, where compliance is based on operating or
equipment practice rather than specific emission limitations, have been
recognized as effective ways to limit HAP emissions without the burden
of characterization of actual HAP emissions and comparison against
numerical limits. Section 112(h) of the CAA recognizes the need for
alternative forms of standards, such as work practice standards.
Therefore, work practice standards such as the use of floating roofs on
tanks or LDAR programs for the control of equipment leaks are proposed
in these NESHAP.
Standards for transfer operations follow the same format as the
standards contained in the HON. The standards allow for vapor return of
displaced materials back to the process or storage container, or
require a percent reduction from uncontrolled levels achieved with the
use of an add-on control device. Note that both proposed standards
apply only to bulk loading into trucks or railcars. Loading into
smaller vessels (e.g., drums) that do not have a dedicated vent or
stack would create a capture efficiency issue, and an effective control
system would likely be based on induced draft capture, which would
result in a dilute emission stream. The control device for this type of
system would be incineration, and it would not be cost effective. Note
that the percent reduction requirement for transfer operations in the
Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing source category is the same as
that for stationary process vessels (i.e., lower than the requirement
in the HON).
Standards for wastewater also follow the formats proposed in other
NESHAP such as the HON. For the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
source category, the applicability criteria consists only of
concentration because the quantity generated is of lesser importance.
For the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category,
we are proposing exactly the same language, including applicability, as
was done in the HON.
The proposed LDAR standards reference subpart UU. That LDAR program
allows less frequent monitoring and repair compared to the HON, but is
as effective as the HON because it targets those components that are
most likely to leak.
Because of the broad applicability of the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category, the requirements contained in
these proposed standards for applicable process vent emissions sources
are formatted so they can be applied to numerous types of emission
sources. Requirements for process vents are structured in the format of
percent reduction coupled with TRE and mass applicability limits.
Requirements for batch emissions sources are based on a percent
reduction from a defined uncontrolled baseline over the group of batch
vents that are contained in a process, as was done in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. For continuous process vents, the
requirements for control are based on

[[Page 16169]]

the TRE format applied in the HON. Both formats allow for a variety of
control devices and are easily implemented over a variety of process
vent sources.
The pollution-prevention standard is based on the premise that a
reduction in consumption of HAP can be associated with a reduction in
losses to air, water, or solid waste. The required 65 percent reduction
in the production-indexed HAP consumption factor is equivalent to the
overall reductions in emissions achieved by the emission limitations
and work practice standards for process vents, storage tanks,
wastewater, and equipment leaks. 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
produced must involve some type of increase in process efficiency,
including reduction of waste, increased product yield, and in-process
recycling. The pollution prevention alternative standard only applies
to chemical manufacturing batch processes because the batch process
vent standards apply to all vents from the process. The continuous
process vent standard applies to single vents and is not a process
based standard. Since the TRE for continuous vents is applied after the
last recovery device, pollution prevention has already been considered
in the applicability of the control requirements for continuous vents.
For the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category,
process emission sources are vessels used to mix and transfer materials
used to make coatings. For process vessels, the standards are a
combination of work practice standard and percent reduction. The
requirement to maintain a sealed and gasketed cover is a work practice
standard. Without such an equipment standard, it would be difficult to
demonstrate capture of displaced vapors into the control device.
Generally, both mixing operations and transfer operations are
conducted at ambient temperatures. The HAP used in coating
manufacturing operations include toluene and xylene. Based on this
narrow set of operating conditions, process vent and transfer operation
emissions from this source category are expected to generally result
from displacements; emission streams from these displacement events are
expected to be saturated at ambient conditions. The choice of control
devices is narrower than in the previous source category. In general,
we expect that the use of condensers will satisfy the control
requirements.
We are, therefore, proposing the use of an additional format for
demonstrating compliance with the stationary process vessel standards
and the transfer operations standards that is based on achieving preset
condenser outlet temperatures that correspond to ranges of material
vapor pressures. This option is intended to simplify the compliance
demonstration because it eliminates the demonstration of 75 percent
reduction using uncontrolled and controlled emission estimates. The
preset ranges are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.--Required Condenser Exit Gas Temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required
outlet gas
HAP partial pressure ranges at 25 deg.C, kPa (Psia) temperatures,
deg.C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.7 kPa (0.1 psia)....................................... 10
³0.7 kPa (0.1 psia) to 17.2 kPa (2.5 psia)..... 2
³17.2 kPa (2.5 psia)........................... -5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These values were set by calculating, on average, necessary
temperatures to condense 75 percent of the HAP in streams predominantly
composed of materials representing vapor pressure ranges of xylene,
toluene, and methanol, common materials in this industry. For
wastewater streams, applicability is based only on the wastewater
constituent concentrations and follows waste disposal practices for
compliance with RCRA since the scale of operations generally precludes
the installation and operation of wastewater treatment systems.
We considered other format options for MACT standards, including
using mass emission rates and outlet concentrations. For the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category, we
concluded that a percent reduction format allows the most flexibility
in terms of defining the floors and in terms of compliance with the
standard. A mass rate standard could not easily be established that
would apply to the multitude of operations covered by the standards
because of the variability in products, materials, and processing
conditions. For example, we would not want to set a MACT floor based
solely on an emission limit that would be easily met by some sources
because of the nature of their operation, but could not be achieved by
all sources in the category. However, we note that the 4,540 kg/yr
(10,000 lb/yr) applicability limit for batch process vents is a type of
mass emission limit. When coupled with the percent reduction, the mass
limit allows owners and operators some flexibility in determining what
portions of processes to control. Yet, the complementing portion of the
standard also offers a percent reduction to enable all facilities in
the source category to comply. No mass limit is proposed for the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category because we could
not establish an acceptable emissions limit below which no control
would be required, based on the MACT floor.
We are also proposing a concentration standard as an alternative to
a percent reduction standard for process vents and storage tanks. This
alternative standard was also provided in the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP as a means of complying with that NESHAP by
manifolding multiple vents or sources to a common device. Sources can
comply by continuously monitoring the outlet concentration of the
control device using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
and ensuring that the TOC concentration does not exceed 20 ppmv for
combustion devices or 50 ppmv TOC for noncombustion devices. If
halogenated compounds are present, you must also monitor for hydrogen
halides and halogens and maintain these concentrations to below 20
ppmv.

E. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Testing and initial compliance demonstration provisions contained
in the NESHAP are based on the requirements contained in the HON for
continuous process vents, transfer sources, and wastewater sources, the
Generic MACT for storage tanks, and the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP for batch process vents and coatings process vessels. We believe
that it is reasonable to use the HON and Generic MACT compliance
demonstration provisions requirements for the above sources because the
formats are consistent with the HON and Generic MACT requirements, and
because we expect many affected sources are already familiar with the
provisions, especially those sources that have colocated miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing process units and HON units. The Generic
MACT compliance provisions for certain sources (fired sources such as
boilers and process heaters) also closely follow requirements contained
in the NSPS, and, therefore, owners and operators of miscellaneous
coatings facilities may also have some familiarity for these types of
sources. In the interest of streamlining requirements for title V
permits, using these existing provisions may also provide opportunities
for

[[Page 16170]]

condensing identical or similar requirements.
The testing and initial compliance demonstration provisions of the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP are referenced for miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing batch process vents and for
miscellaneous coatings stationary process vessels because that NESHAP
considers the issues associated with the characterization and control
of batch emission sources. There are two important concepts contained
in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP that will also apply to the
batch sources in these source categories, and they are: (1) The use of
emission estimation equations to determine uncontrolled and controlled
emissions, and (2) the consideration of aggregated batch emission
sources in the development of an initial compliance demonstration under
worst case conditions. There are more reliable, less costly methods to
characterize emissions from batch processes using accepted
methodologies to estimate emissions from batch emission sources rather
than using testing strategies that are limited in data. This is because
the characteristics that drive emissions, flow and concentration, often
vary independently of each other in batch emission events. The use of a
single data point for flow and one for concentration may not be
representative of emissions over the event. Conversely, the use of
accepted emission estimation methodologies provides a consistent set of
guidelines for calculating emissions and is especially important in
these proposed NESHAP, since compliance rests on demonstrating a
percent reduction from an uncontrolled value. The uncontrolled value
must be calculated consistently in order for the NESHAP to be fairly
and consistently applied across the industry.
As a related issue, we have also required the same process
condenser control efficiency demonstration requirement as in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP for some batch process vents in
miscellaneous organic chemicals manufacturing sources. As in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, we proposed to exclude from the
demonstration requirement any process condensers followed by secondary
condensers that would be considered air pollution control devices and
air pollution control devices complying with the alternative standard.
This compliance procedure for process condensers is being proposed to
ensure that owners and operators will accurately characterize
uncontrolled emissions.
The emission estimation methodologies provided in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP and referenced in these proposed
NESHAP were also used in the Polymers and Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subparts U and JJJ). They are based on accepted vapor-liquid
equilibrium principles and were reviewed extensively during the
development of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.
The worst-case testing provisions are structured to account for the
most challenging conditions to which a control device will be exposed.
The initial compliance demonstration is also tied to the continuous
compliance demonstration in that an operating parameter is used as an
indicator of the control device's performance over time, and the
operating parameter is first ``calibrated'' against the control
efficiency achieved by the device during the initial compliance
demonstration. Therefore, the initial compliance demonstration must be
conducted at the most challenging conditions in order to ensure
continuous compliance under all other conditions. However, the proposed
NESHAP are structured such that monitoring is required only for those
events that are controlled for the purposes of complying with the
proposed NESHAP.
We also have provided some language in the proposed NESHAP that
clarifies appropriate methods for demonstrating compliance with percent
reduction requirements and emission concentration limits on combustion
devices. The proposed NESHAP allow owners and operators to use either
Method 25, 25A (under certain specific conditions), or 18 to
demonstrate compliance with the HAP percent emission reduction
requirement. However, if Method 18 is used, we clarify that only HAP
that are present in the inlet to the device can be used to characterize
the percent reduction across the device. Additionally, you must first
determine which HAP are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,
uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or a screening
procedure. When using Method 25 or 25A, you must measure the inlet and
outlet mass emissions as carbon.
We provided this clarification because when organic compounds are
controlled by combustion processes, the organic pollutants emitted at
the outlet of the device are not the same as those entering the inlet
to the device and are typically unknown. Method 18, which measures
specific, known compounds, will not yield accurate results unless it
can be used to determine the percent reduction of known compounds
across the device. Conversely, Method 25 measures total non-methane
organic compounds and can be used to determine percent reduction across
the combustion device regardless of how the combustion process affects
the inlet and outlet streams. Under certain conditions (i.e.,
controlled emissions concentrations less than 50 ppmv), Method 25A may
be used in lieu of Method 25 for determining the reduction across a
combustion device.
In demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration standard,
you may use Method 18 or Method 25A. If Method 18 is used, the
resulting concentration must be reported as the compound or compounds
measured; however, if Method 25A is used, the concentration must be
reported as carbon.
Initial compliance with the pollution-prevention alternative would
be accomplished by documenting yearly quantities of HAP raw materials
and products using available records, including standard purchasing and
accounting records, and periodically calculating annual rolling totals
of the production-indexed HAP consumption factor for comparison with
the baseline value. The factor must be calculated every 30 days for
continuous processes, and every 10 batches (up to once per month) for
batch processes.

F. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

Monitoring is required by the proposed NESHAP to determine whether
a source is in compliance on an ongoing basis. We selected the
continuous compliance requirements based on a combination of general
monitoring requirements in the General Provisions (subpart A) and
specific monitoring requirements for the HON and Pharmaceuticals
Production source categories.
1. General Monitoring Requirements
As specified in Sec. 63.8(c) of the General Provisions, sources
must record the data from their monitoring systems at least once every
15 minutes. However, for control devices that are determined to control
less than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr) of HAP, the proposed subparts require
only a daily verification that the devices are operating as required,
consistent with the referenced Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. We
are also referencing limits for the minimum amount of data that can be
recorded to demonstrate compliance with the proposed NESHAP, based on
requirements in the HON and the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

[[Page 16171]]

Sources would be required to calculate either daily or block
averages of their operating parameter values for the purpose of
ensuring continuous compliance. We selected the daily or block
averaging times referenced in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP
again following consistency with the initial compliance demonstration.

2. Continuous Monitoring

When determining appropriate monitoring options, we consider the
availability and feasibility of the following strategies in a ``top-
down'' approach: (1) CEMS for the actual HAP emitted, (2) CEMS for HAP
surrogates, (3) monitoring operating parameters, and (4) work practice
standards. In evaluating the use of CEMS in these proposed NESHAP,
monitoring of individual HAP species may not be reasonable or
technically feasible for many streams. For those cases where it is
feasible, CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15 may be used to
measure and report emissions as individual HAP compounds. However, in
the case of continuous monitoring of surrogates, continuous TOC
monitoring is considered a viable and efficient monitoring option and
is provided in these proposed NESHAP. The alternative standard makes
use of CEMS that meet Performance Specification 8 that have been
calibrated using the predominant HAP in the stream. The results must be
reported as carbon when compared to the 20 ppmv emission limit for
combustion devices or 50 ppmv emission limit for noncombustion devices.
To monitor hydrochloric acid emissions, you must either use a CEMS that
meets Performance Specification 15, or if you wish to use a CEMS for
which we have not promulgated a Performance Specification, you must
prepare a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.8 of the General Provisions. The
requirement to submit a monitoring plan for approval is an interim
solution that is necessary until we promulgate applicable Performance
Specifications.
Monitoring of control device operating parameters is considered
appropriate for many other emission sources, and therefore, most of the
other monitoring options provided in the proposed NESHAP are based on
parametric monitoring.
Based on information from the source categories, we selected
operating parameters for the following types of control devices that
are reliable indicators of control device performance: thermal and
catalytic incinerators, flares, carbon adsorbers, scrubbers, and
condensers. In general, we selected parameters and monitoring
provisions that are contained in the HON and in the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP. The range of parameter limits in both NESHAP should
cover both batch and continuous production processes. Sources would
monitor these operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the emission limitations and operating limitations.
We are also proposing monitoring parameters for catalytic
incinerators that are different from parameters that have been required
to be monitored in existing NESHAP. Instead of requiring monitoring of
the temperature differential across the catalyst bed, we are proposing
that the inlet temperature into the incinerator be monitored, since we
believe that this parameter would be a better indicator of overall
incinerator performance for the type of emission stream characteristics
we expect to find in these source categories. For low flow or dilute
concentrations, we believe that it may not always be possible to
achieve the recommended temperature differential. We are also proposing
to require an annual catalyst test to verify that the catalyst activity
is still acceptable.
3. Other Monitoring
You may choose an alternative to the monitoring required by the
proposed NESHAP. If you do, you must request approval for alternative
monitoring according to the procedures in subpart A, Sec. 63.8, or you
must request the approach in your precompliance report.
The proposed NESHAP also contain monitoring for work practice
standards involving periodic inspections for equipment integrity. These
monitoring requirements include storage tank seal inspections,
wastewater component surface inspections, and bypass and closure device
inspections and are also required by the HON and the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP.

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

We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements based on generic requirements in the General Provisions
and specific requirements for the HON and Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP.
1. Notification Requirements
The notification requirements in the proposed NESHAP include
initial notifications, notification of performance test, notification
of compliance status, and notification dates. These notification
requirements are based on requirements in Secs. 63.6(h), 63.7(b) and
(c), 63.8(e) and (f), 63.9(b), (f), and (h), and 63.10(d)(2) of the
General Provisions.
2. Reporting Requirements
The reporting requirements that we selected include semiannual
compliance reports, required in Sec. 63.10(e)(3), and immediate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports, required in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). If there are no deviations from the standards
during the reporting period, then your semiannual compliance report
must include a statement to that effect. If there were deviations from
the standards during the reporting period, then your semiannual
compliance report must include the information listed in Table 15 of
the proposed subpart FFFF or HHHHH. For each deviation where a CEMS is
used to comply with the standards, your compliance report must also
include the information in Secs. 63.8(c)(8), 63.10(c)(5) through (13),
and 63.10(e)(3)(vi). If there was a startup, shutdown or malfunction
during the reporting period, and you took actions consistent with your
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, then your compliance report
must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i). The submittal date
for the compliance report is based on information in
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v).
If there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period, and you took actions inconsistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, then you must submit an immediate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. The report must include the
actions taken for the event and the information provided in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The submittal date for the immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report is based on Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
3. Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed NESHAP require you to maintain a copy of each
notification and report, as well as documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status, according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(1)(xiv). You must also keep the
records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction; records of performance tests and performance evaluations,
as required in Sec. 63.7(g)(1); and records for each CEMS and parameter
monitoring system.
The records for the CEMS would include the records described in
Sec. 63.10(b)(vi) through (xi); superseded

[[Page 16172]]

versions of the performance evaluation plan, as required in
Sec. 63.7(d)(3); and the request for alternatives to a relative
accuracy test for CEMS, as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i). The records
for the parameter monitoring system would include records of operating
limits and parameter monitoring data. You must keep records of all
material balances and calculations documenting the percent reduction in
HAP emissions used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

H. What Is the Relationship of These Proposed NESHAP to Other Rules?

This section discusses the relationship between today's proposed
NESHAP and other Federal rules covering facilities containing sources
in these source categories. This section also discusses the
relationship between proposed subpart HHHHH and MACT rules that are
currently under development for source categories in the Surface
Coating Processes Industry Group.
In today's proposed NESHAP, we cross-reference pertinent existing
rules to maintain consistency with other Federal standards. Subparts
GGG (the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) and SS (the Generic MACT)
contain requirements for emissions sources that are similar to those
found in these source categories. These existing standards reflect the
current Agency positions that have been developed through numerous
rulemaking efforts. By maintaining consistency with these existing
standards, we believe we have reduced the burden to regulators and
industry in limiting the amount of material that must be understood in
order to comply. However, we are interested in your specific
suggestions for reducing the overall burden of the NESHAP without
jeopardizing their enforceability or our overall emission reduction
goals.
Because of the broad applicability of proposed subpart FFFF,
another issue with regard to the relationship of these rules to other
existing MACT rules is that applicability could appear to fit more than
one source category in some cases. We have, therefore, included options
that allow compliance with one rule in cases where dual MACT coverage
of the same affected source might occur. For example, we are allowing
affected sources with equipment subject to the equipment leak standards
or wastewater standards contained in subpart GGG to comply with the
proposed subpart FFFF for all such equipment. Lastly, we have also
included provisions that allow compliance with the provisions of these
standards in cases where other rules overlap and affect the same
affected sources. These provisions apply to sources that must comply
with RCRA requirements at 40 CFR parts 264, 265, and 260 through 272;
NSPS requirements at part 60, subparts Kb, III, NNN, and RRR; and
NESHAP requirements at part 63, subpart H.
Coatings manufacturers are not only potentially subject to proposed
subpart HHHHH, but their products and production operations may change
as their customers demand coatings that will comply with the
requirements of MACT rules for source categories in the Surface Coating
Processes Industry Group. Therefore, the coatings manufacturers have
requested that we coordinate the timing of the various surface coatings
MACT rules and subpart HHHHH so that they have a chance to assess how
their production operations may change. We recognize this concern, and
we will attempt to coordinate the timing of these rules, while also
considering our obligation to promulgate all MACT rules by May 2002 so
that States are not required to develop MACT on a case-by-case basis.
We are also soliciting comments on how best to coordinate these rules.

I. What Types of Comments Are Being Specifically Requested by the
Administrator?

The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or
referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on the
basis of information available. The Administrator is specifically
requesting factual information that may support either the approach
taken or an alternate approach. In order to receive proper
consideration, documentation or data should be provided. This section
requests comments on specific issues identified during the development
of the standards.
1. What Comments Are We Soliciting on MACT Floor Determinations?
We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor
for processing vessels in coating manufacturing at new sources. The new
source MACT floor for processing vessels is 95 percent reduction of HAP
for stationary and portable vessels that have a capacity greater than
250 gallons. Seven facilities reported control levels for stationary
processing vessels of 95 percent or greater. Two of these facilities
reported control levels for portable vessels of 95 percent and greater.
Two facilities reported control levels of 99 percent. These processing
vessels include removable and fixed roofs and are controlled by thermal
oxidizers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers. We determined that 95
percent reduction represents the control level for the best controlled
source with consideration given to similarity of sources and total HAP
emissions control. For example, one facility reported 95 percent
control device efficiency for their portable and stationary vessels
equipped with fixed roofs and vented to a thermal oxidizer. We seek
comments and data on the representativeness of the facilities as
similar sources on which the proposed new source MACT floor is based
and the feasibility of controlling emissions from all process vessels
at a facility at the proposed 95 percent control level.
We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor
for stationary process vessels at existing coating manufacturing
sources. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the proposed MACT floor
consists of a cover on the vessel and venting exhaust to a control
device that reduces emissions that it receives by at least 60 percent.
This control level represents the average of the control levels for the
best performing 12 percent of stationary process vessels. We used the
average, or mean, instead of the median because the control device
efficiencies represented a fairly even, though wide, distribution and a
representative control device is available at the mean. However, a
large number of vessels in the top 12 percent were not controlled. We
are requesting comments on whether the central tendency of the best
performing 12 percent of stationary process vessels should be
represented by the mean or the median. The median control level
achieved for the best performing 12 percent of the vessels is 80
percent. The mean, which is derived by averaging the control
efficiencies of both controlled and uncontrolled facilities, results in
a level of control that is not actually achieved by any control device
in the MACT floor dataset, although the mean is readily achievable with
a representative control device for this industry (i.e., condenser).
The median represents both a central tendency and a level of control
currently being achieved with add-on control. We are soliciting
comments on whether we adequately characterized the MACT floor level of
control for process vessels at coating manufacturing facilities.
We are requesting comments and data on the basis for establishing
the MACT floor for continuous vents in miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing at existing sources. As

[[Page 16173]]

discussed previously in this section, the MACT floor for continuous
process vents at existing sources is 98 percent reduction for vents
meeting a TRE of 2.6. The MACT floor determination was based on 5
facilities which represented the top 12 percent of the sources. The
data used to determine the MACT floor were collected prior to 1996, and
in order to move forward with rule development we have not continued to
update the information. It has recently come to our attention that some
of the data may have changed. Specifically, a plant used in the floor
calculation may have closed down. We are soliciting comments on whether
we adequately characterized the MACT floor level of control for
continuous vents at organic chemical manufacturing facilities.
We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor
for equipment leaks for organic chemical manufacturing sources. We have
information on 229 facilities indicating that the LDAR program
implemented at 30 facilities is the HON LDAR program or a program
equivalent to the HON. We are soliciting comments on whether we
adequately characterized the MACT floor level of control for equipment
leaks from organic chemical manufacturing.
2. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Definitions?
We are soliciting comments on the definitions of ``batch process,''
``process vent,'' ``isolated intermediate,'' and ``family of
materials'' in the proposed subpart FFFF. The first two definitions are
similar to the definitions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, where a
``process'' means all equipment which function to produce a product or
isolated intermediate, and an ``isolated intermediate'' means the
product of a process that is stored before further processing. Two
important differences between subpart GGG and the proposed subpart FFFF
are that precursors are not relevant in the proposed subpart FFFF and
that the term ``process'' in the proposed subpart FFFF applies to a
family of products. Because the batch process vent standard in the
proposed subpart FFFF applies only if the process vents from a single
process emit 10,000 lbs/yr HAP; the definition of process is very
critical to applicability determinations. It is our intent that the end
of a process is marked by long time storage, storage for the purpose of
shipping product offsite, or storage for the purpose of building
inventory. A process is not an intermediate step in the continuous
sequence of steps to produce a final product. In addition, we believe
that production of chemicals that vary only slightly in molecular
structure, functional groups or other characteristics and are produced
by procedures that have essentially identical emission sources and
emission stream characteristics should be considered as one process. We
use the term ``family of materials'' to describe these types of
materials, and the production of these similar products must be grouped
into one ``process'' for the purposes of complying with the proposed
subpart FFFF. In stakeholder meetings, industry representatives have
stated that the proposed definition is not clear regarding which types
of products must be included in a family. One suggestion was to include
specific criteria about the product characteristics, emissions, and
processing steps that materials must have in common in order to be part
of a family of materials. Therefore, we are soliciting comments on
applicable criteria or other ways to clarify this definition.
According to the proposed definition of ``process vent'' in subpart
FFFF, emission streams that are undiluted and uncontrolled containing
less than 50 ppmv HAP are not considered process vents. We are
requesting comments on the emission stream to which the 50 ppmv
criterion should be applied for batch process vents. One approach would
be to apply it to each emission episode (e.g., vapor displacement,
purge, drying, etc.) in a process, regardless of the point from which
it is emitted. Another approach would be to combine all of the emission
episodes that are released from a particular point (e.g., vapor
displacement and depressurization from a reactor vent), and determine
the average concentration for the aggregated stream. We are interested
in data for a situation where one emission episode has a concentration
above 50 ppmv, but all other emission episodes released from the same
point, and the combined stream for the emission point, have
concentrations below 50 ppmv. We are interested in rationale supporting
the choice of either of the presented approaches or any other approach.
We are requesting comments on the definition of ``coating
manufacturing'' in Sec. 63.7985(b) of the proposed subpart HHHHH. It is
not our intent to include end-users in the definition of manufacturers;
however, several end-users have mixing operations similar to the
activities of coating manufacturers with comparable HAP emissions. To
address these operations, we are considering developing requirements
for a separate class of coating manufacturers who produce the coating
for captive use. We do not have data to show there is a floor for such
operations, but we are evaluating the costs to control the emissions.
We seek comments on costs to control emissions from, and an appropriate
size cutoff for, such a class of manufacturers.
For both miscellaneous coating and organic chemical manufacturing
facilities, the term ``cleaning operation'' is defined as in 40 CFR
63.1251 as ``routine rinsing, washing, or boil-off of equipment in
batch operations between batches.'' As discussed in sections II.D and
III.C, ``cleaning operations'' are considered to be part of the process
in which the cleaning operations occur and are subject to the same
requirements as any other process step. Cleaning the exterior of
equipment is not considered to be part of the ``cleaning operations,''
and emissions from cleaning an existing portable vessel are not
required to be controlled under the proposed rule. We are soliciting
comments on the approach. Specifically, we are interested in
information on cleaning procedures (e.g., whether tanks have automatic
wash systems and/or have to be washed by hand; whether tank lids or
covers have to be taken off and remain off to gain and maintain access
for workers), venting during cleaning, and any additional costs of
controlling emissions during the cleaning step as part of the process.
3. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Standards That Overlap?
Compliance options for chemical manufacturing facilities subject to
both the proposed subpart FFFF and another subpart are in 40 CFR
63.2535. Multipurpose equipment subject to standards under the proposed
subpart FFFF may also be subject to standards under another rule. Such
is the case with equipment leaks. To minimize the compliance burden, we
have included provisions that allow you to comply only with the
equipment leak provisions in the proposed subpart FFFF for all
equipment subject to subparts GGG and MMM at a facility with an
affected source under the proposed subpart FFFF. We are requesting
comments on other areas where different standards may overlap, the
difficulties posed by such overlapping standards, and ways to reduce
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden of complying with
the requirements of the proposed subpart and another subpart.
4. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Pollution Prevention?
We are soliciting comments on the pollution prevention alternative
standard for miscellaneous organic

[[Page 16174]]

chemical manufacturing in proposed subpart FFFF. The pollution
prevention standard uses the same format as the standard in 40 CFR part
63, subpart GGG. We especially seek information on alternative measures
of source reduction and pollution prevention. Note that since the TRE
for continuous vents is applied after the last recovery device,
pollution prevention is already incorporated into the standard for
continuous processes.
No such pollution prevention alternative is currently proposed for
coating manufacturers; however, since the proposed rule for coating
manufacturers does not apply to coatings that contain less than 5
percent HAP, reformulation is a possible pollution prevention
alternative. We are soliciting information and comments on pollution
prevention alternatives for coating manufacturers.
5. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Testing?
Subpart GGG contains testing requirements that differ depending on
the amount of HAP treated; for example, if a control device receives
less than 10 tons per year HAP, then a performance test is not
required. We are considering similar requirements for miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing facilities. We seek information on
practicable testing procedures for batch processes and comments on
testing provisions in subpart FFFF.
6. What Comments Are We Soliciting on MACT Standards for Process
Vessels at Coating Manufacturing Facilities?
The process vent standard for the proposed subpart HHHHH applies to
each stationary process vessel greater than 250 gallons. The standard
for stationary vessels includes the work practice standards for closed
vent systems as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We are
requesting comments and data on the types of vent systems used on
process vessels to capture emissions from the vessels in coating
manufacturing facilities with control devices; the costs associated
with the installation of such systems; and any problems encountered
where closed vent systems are in use, for example, involving worker
health and safety issues; the ability to capture all emissions from the
vessel; drawing out and evaporating solvents from the coating mix in
the vessel, thereby affecting product; and interfering with the ability
to add raw material to the vessels.
We are requesting comments on alternative formats for the standard
that applies to stationary process vessels in proposed subpart HHHHH,
such as a standard that applies to all processing vessels as a whole
instead of each vessel individually. In considering alternatives, we
will examine other formats to ensure that compliance can adequately be
demonstrated and acceptable records can be maintained. Further, we are
requesting information on the application, effectiveness, and cost of
alternative control technologies or approaches for process vessels.
As already noted, the emission reduction requirements in the
proposed subpart HHHHH represent an overall HAP control efficiency for
the process vessel. Overall control includes capture efficiency of
emissions from the process vessels' vented cover or lid through the
closed vent system and the recovery or destruction efficiency of the
control device. We seek comments on demonstrating compliance for
overall control of HAP from process vessels.
The cost of the standard for stationary process vessels is based on
several assumptions. The representative control technology is
refrigerated condensation. For sizing purposes, we assumed no more than
five vessels would be filled simultaneously. The modeled vent stream
was saturated with toluene. The flowrate was assumed to be 100 scfm.
The cost of the refrigeration units were estimated using the model
developed for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. We are
requesting comments and information on these assumptions and model, the
characteristics of vent streams from process vessels, and the costs
associated with the proposed standards.
7. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Explosives Production?
As discussed in section III.A., we are soliciting comments on
whether process vent emissions from explosives production processes
should be treated as a separate class of emission streams subject to a
lesser degree of control than that required for process vents from
other types of processes in the source category. For example, we are
specifically soliciting comments on the performance achievable and
costs associated with using condensers, although we are also interested
in information about other types of controls. One option we are
considering is control based on the use of condensers operated at the
default temperatures that are being proposed for coatings
manufacturing, and we are soliciting comments on whether these default
values (or others) would be appropriate for some or all of the
processes in the explosives production industry. If we do develop
standards for process vents from explosives manufacturing as a separate
class of process vents within the source category, we need to be able
to clearly define the affected processes. Because explosives are often
referred to as ``energetics,'' we are considering using this term to
define the class of processes, and we are soliciting comments on what
the definition of ``energetics'' should be.
8. What Comments Are We Soliciting on the Emission Estimates for
Coating Manufacturing?
We are requesting data and information on HAP emissions from
process vessels and other process units at coating manufacturing
facilities. The AP-42 emission factor for paint manufacturing is 30
pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per ton of product. The AP-
42 has an emission loss factor of between 1 percent and 2 percent for
paint mixing operations. We used 1 percent of the total HAP throughput
at the facility to determine the uncontrolled HAP emissions from
process vessels. The industry has stated their preference to base HAP
emission calculations on the ``Preferred and Alternative Methods for
Estimating Air Emissions from Paint and Ink Manufacturing Facilities''
chapter of ``Stationary Point Source Emission Inventory Development''
prepared as part of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP).
The EIIP is a jointly sponsored effort of the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) and EPA with the stated goal to
provide cost-effective and reliable inventories. The preferred method
is the use of emission models, and alternative methods are the use of
emission factors, material balances, and test data. We believe that
emission factors and material balances apply more to an entire process,
emission models and test data apply most often to only a step in the
process and therefore may not account for all losses. To develop a
valid estimate of uncontrolled (or baseline) emissions using the
emission models for material loading, heat-up, surface evaporation, and
vessel cleaning, we would need to obtain a considerable amount of
additional data. For example, we would need to know the typical number
of vessels through which the material travels in production processes,
the temperature of heat-up and the number or percentage of processes
that have a heat-up step, the number of batches per year, the frequency
of cleaning, and the volume of material used in cleaning. Material

[[Page 16175]]

balances, however, by their very nature, account for all losses. Other,
more resource-intensive methods, also can account for all losses. For
example, losses from process vessels and equipment leaks from equipment
enclosed in a building could be estimated if the building exhaust
concentration and flows could be measured accurately. However, a
material balance would be easier to do, since input data such as
accounting records and material product specifications are presumably
already available. Therefore, we believe that an emission estimating
procedure that has been validated with material balance data will
provide the most accurate method for estimating emissions. Without
material balance data or other more robust methods, we think that the
AP-42 emission factor best estimates total HAP emissions and gives
results most consistent with the definition of major source in section
112(a) of the CAA as well as in Sec. 63.2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
We are soliciting comments on the foregoing approaches, and because
we do not have the necessary information for the coatings industry to
use more robust methods, we are requesting data and information on HAP
emissions from process vessels and other operational units at coating
manufacturing facilities as well as mass balance data to help us
develop more representative emissions factors, including factors
specific to this industry.
9. What Comments Are We Soliciting on the MACT Standard for Equipment
Leaks at Coating Manufacturing Facilities?
Equipment leak HAP emissions from coating manufacturing were
estimated using the same emission factors used for organic chemical
manufacturing because we lacked initial leak frequency data. Without
industry specific leak rate data, we have no basis for using anything
other than the AP-42 emission factor for equipment leaks. Therefore, we
are soliciting initial leak frequency data to help us develop emission
factors for equipment leaks in coating manufacturing operations.
In light of the paucity of leak data from coating manufacturing
operations, we are considering providing an alternative to compliance
with the HON-equivalent equipment leak requirements in the proposed
subpart HHHHH. The alternative would reduce emissions beyond the floor
level of control by requiring covers on all process vessels. Instead of
complying with the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program in 40 CFR
part 63 subpart UU, which is similar to the HON requirements, the owner
or operator would choose to comply with the MACT floor (a sensory LDAR
program as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R) and cover all open
process vessels at the affected facility (i.e., including all vessels
equal to or smaller than 250 gallons that are not subject to the
requirements for process vessels). Under this alternative, we envision
an LDAR work practice standard that requires the following: (1)
Performing a monthly leak inspection of all equipment in HAP service,
using detection methods incorporating sight, sound, and smell; (2)
inspections that are conducted during periods when the process is
operating; (3) initial attempts at repair are made no later than 5 days
after leak detection, and repairs be completed within 15 days of leak
detection, unless delay of repair is allowed based on a demonstration
that repair in this time period is not feasible; and (4) all portable
and stationary process vessels with a capacity less than or equal to
250 gallons are equipped with a cover or lid that must be in place at
all times when the vessel contains a HAP. The covers or lids could be
of solid or flexible construction, provided they stay in place. To
demonstrate initial compliance, you would be required to maintain a log
with a list of the equipment, a diagram, or some other means of
identifying the number of components and their location, and you would
be required to note in your Notification of Compliance Status that you
have the required covers for the small process vessels. To demonstrate
continuous compliance, you would be required to record in the log the
identity of the leaking components (either individually or by area),
the date of leak detection, and the date of repair, and you would be
required to sign the log book after each inspection to verify
completion and accuracy. This alternative, including both the sensory
LDAR program and the requirement to cover vessels less than 250
gallons, would go in entry 1. in Table 4 as an alternative work
practice standard for each piece of equipment that is in organic HAP
service and is not described in 40 CFR 63.1019(c) through (e). We are
requesting information on the effectiveness and cost of covering all
tanks less than or equal to 250 gallons. Information that would assist
us in estimating the effectiveness of this alternative includes types
of flexible covers used by the industry, industry practice of using
covers on small vessels, cost of covers, and the typical number of
small process vessels relative to the total number of process vessels
(or relative to the number of process vessels greater than 250 gallons)
at a facility.
We are soliciting comments and data on both control alternatives.
Whether we promulgate one of the two alternatives or both alternatives
will depend on the comments and data we receive and the results of the
regulatory impact analysis.
10. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Coordination of MACT Standards
Affecting the Coating Industry?
As discussed in III.H., we recognize that coating manufacturers may
have to change their production processes in response to demands for
different products that will comply with the MACT standards for surface
coating application. We intend to coordinate the promulgation of
subpart HHHHH and the coating application rules to the extent possible,
recognizing that we must promulgate all MACT standards by May 2002.
Therefore, we are soliciting comments on ways to coordinate the timing
of these rules.
11. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Wastewater Standards for Organic
Chemical Manufacturing?
Representatives of the chemical industry have suggested that it
would be more appropriate to regulate wastewater streams containing
mostly or entirely soluble HAP compounds differently than streams
containing significant amounts of partially soluble compounds. They
have submitted examples of wastewater streams that do not volatilize
appreciably while in open sewer lines en route to the biological
treatment unit, and suggest that EPA either establish an alternative
floor of open sewer lines and biological treatment for this subcategory
of wastewater streams, or not require closed conveyance for such
streams.
We are soliciting comments and data concerning wastewater streams
containing only soluble HAP (less than 50 ppmw partially soluble HAP)
that would be subject to the proposed rule to determine whether they
represent a separate class of wastewater (or processes from which the
streams originate) as compared to HON wastewater. The data should
include stream flow volume, stream HAP concentrations, stream
temperature at the point of determination, control option currently
used to treat the stream, and whether the lines or sewer system used to
convey the stream is closed or open.
The HON requires that the sewer system conveying an affected

[[Page 16176]]

wastewater stream be closed. We understand from the industry that most
sources have complied with the HON by installing steam strippers at the
process so the existing sewer system did not have to be retrofitted
down to the biological treatment unit. We are requesting owners and
operators of processes covered by the proposed rule to comment on the
installation of steam strippers at the process.
We are also requesting information on unit operations that remove
methanol or other soluble HAP from wastewater as efficiently as the
design steam stripper in the HON.
12. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Process Change Management?
We are soliciting information on process change management as it
relates to title V permits. The 40 CFR part 70 regulations allow the
source to account for operating scenarios the source owner or operator
reasonably anticipates over the source of the permit term, without need
for permit revision (40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)). Change management strategy is
discussed in detail in the preamble to the promulgated NESHAP for
Pharmaceuticals Production (63 FR 50309, September 21, 1998). We are
soliciting comments on change management and especially change
management for owners and operators complying with the proposed
alternative standard that limits the outlet concentration of the
control device.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

The basis for the estimated impacts for existing sources subject to
the proposed NESHAP is discussed in a series of memoranda in the
docket.
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimated nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category to be
44,700 Mg/yr (49,300 tons/yr). We estimated that the proposed standards
in subpart FFFF will reduce HAP emissions by about 28,000 Mg/yr (31,000
tons/yr). Because many of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities are also VOC, the proposed NESHAP
also will reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels in combustion-based control devices and to
generate electricity and steam would increase secondary emissions of
CO, NO_X, SO₂, and particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (PM₁₀). We estimate that these emissions
would increase by about 1,270 Mg/yr (1,400 ton/yr). These impacts were
estimated assuming electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants,
steam is produced in natural gas-fired industrial boilers, and natural
gas is used as the auxiliary fuel in incinerators and flares.
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital costs
for existing sources are estimated to be $122 million, and the total
annual costs for existing sources are estimated to be $75 million.
We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of
subpart FFFF that the annual cost burden will average $3,200/yr per
respondent for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for an estimated 251 sources. Most of these costs are for new and
reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup; other
costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications and
plans. In the 4th year after the effective date, existing facilities
must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to comply with
operating limits and prepare compliance reports, which will
significantly increase the nationwide annual burden.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed
NESHAP will be less than described above because of the potential to
use common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement
emissions averaging, or comply with the alternative standard. Because
the effect of such practices is highly site-specific and data were
unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost compliance practices
could be utilized, we could not quantify the amount by which actual
compliance costs will be reduced.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increase
for affected output would be 0.5 percent as a result of the proposed
NESHAP for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturers. The expected
change in production of affected output is a reduction of 0.3 percent
as a result of the proposed NESHAP. There is one plant closure expected
out of the 207 facilities affected by the proposed NESHAP. It should be
noted that the baseline economic conditions of the facility predicted
to close affect the closure estimate provided by the economic model,
and that the facility predicted to close appears to have low
profitability levels currently. Therefore, it is likely that there is
no adverse impact expected to occur for those industries that produce
miscellaneous organic chemicals affected by the proposed NESHAP, such
as soaps and cleaners, industrial organic chemicals, and agricultural
chemicals.
4. What Are the Nonair Quality Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be
generated from steam stripping of wastewater streams. No solid waste is
expected to be generated from controls of other emission points. We
expect the overall energy demand (i.e., for auxiliary fuel in
incinerators, electricity generation, and steam production) to increase
by an estimated 8.8 million gigajoules per year (GJ/yr) (8.37 trillion
British thermal units per year (Btu/yr)).

B. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimated nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category to be 7,800 Mg/yr
(8,600 tons/yr). We estimated that the proposed standards in subpart
HHHHH will reduce HAP emissions by about 5,670 Mg/yr (6,250 tons/yr).
Because many of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facilities are also VOC, the proposed NESHAP also will reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels to generate electricity and steam would
increase secondary emissions of CO, NO_X, SO₂, and
PM₁₀. We estimate that these emissions would increase by
about 34 Mg/yr (37 ton/yr). These impacts were estimated assuming
electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants and steam is
produced in natural gas-fired industrial boilers.
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control
devices and monitoring equipment, and it includes the annual costs
involved in operating control devices and monitoring equipment,
implementing work practices, and conducting performance tests. The
annual cost impacts also

[[Page 16177]]

include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of product or
solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital costs for existing
sources are estimated to be $57 million, and the total annual costs for
existing sources are estimated to be $16 million.
We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of
the proposed subpart HHHHH that the annual cost burden will average
$3,500/yr per respondent for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for an estimated 129 sources. Most of these costs are for
new and reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup;
other costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications
and plans. In the 4th year after the effective date, existing
facilities must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to
comply with operating limits, and they must prepare compliance reports.
These activities will significantly increase the nationwide annual
burden.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed
NESHAP will be less than described above because of the potential to
use common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement
emissions averaging, or comply with the preset temperature limits for
condensers. Because the effect of such practices is highly site-
specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost
compliance practices could be utilized, we could not quantify the
amount by which actual compliance costs will be reduced.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increase
for affected output would be 0.3 percent as a result of the proposed
NESHAP for miscellaneous coating manufacturers. The expected change in
production of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 percent as a result
of the proposed NESHAP. There is one plant closure expected out of the
127 facilities affected by the proposed NESHAP. It should be noted that
the baseline economic conditions of the facility predicted to close
affect the closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that
the facility predicted to close appears to have low profitability
levels currently. Therefore, it is likely that there is no adverse
impact expected to occur for those industries that produce output
affected by the proposed NESHAP, such as paints, inks, and adhesives.
4. What Are the Nonair Quality Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
We do not expect solid waste to be generated from controlling HAP
emissions from miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities. If a
facility elects to control wastewater using a steam stripper, we expect
that overheads from steam stripping will be recoverable as material or
fuel, and that no solid waste would be generated. No solid waste is
expected to be generated from controls of other emission points.
We expect the overall energy demand (i.e., for electricity
generation and steam production) to increase by an estimated 43,200 GJ/
yr (41.0 billion Btu/yr).

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to
suggestions or recommendations from OMB will be documented and included
in the public record.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
Today's proposed rules do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 because State and
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be
subject to the proposed NESHAP. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed NESHAP.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed rules do not have tribal implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own or operate miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process units or miscellaneous coating operations. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these proposed rules.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that

[[Page 16178]]

EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives that
EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's proposed NESHAP are
not subject to the Executive Order because they are based on technology
performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, the proposed
NESHAP have been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as
defined in Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed NESHAP do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual costs of the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and the Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing NESHAP for any year have been estimated to be
less than $75 million and $16 million, respectively. Thus, today's
proposed NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the proposed
NESHAP contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because they contain no requirements
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
Therefore, today's proposed NESHAP are not subject to the requirements
of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed subparts
FFFF and HHHHH on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business ranging from up to 500 employees to up to 1,000
employees, depending on the NAICS code, (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The
table below presents the threshold for small businesses by NAICS code.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number
of employees
Category NAICS codes to be
considered a
small business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing.................. 325110, 325120 1000
325193, 325199
325212, 325221
325222, 325311
325132, 325192 750
325211, 325411
325412, 325611
325920
325191, 325312 500
325314, 325320
325413, 325414
325510, 325520
325612, 325613
325620, 325910
325991, 325992
325998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed subparts
FFFF and HHHHH on small entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In accordance with the RFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the
proposed standards on small businesses within the industries affected
by the proposed NESHAP. Based on SBA size definitions for the affected
industries and reported sales and employment data for the Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing source category, EPA identified as small
businesses 32 of the 58 companies owning affected coating manufacturing
facilities. This constitutes 55 percent of the affected businesses.
Although small businesses represent 55 percent of the companies within
the source category, they are expected to incur 24 percent of the total
industry compliance costs of $16 million. According to EPA's economic
assessment, there are two small firms with compliance costs equal to or
greater than 3 percent of their sales. In addition, there are five
small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by
the proposed subpart HHHHH. The analysis shows that of the 70
facilities owned by affected small firms, one is expected to shut down
after the implementation of the proposed NESHAP.
The baseline economic condition of the facility predicted to close
affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities
that are already experiencing adverse economic conditions will be more
severely

[[Page 16179]]

impacted than those that are not. Our analysis indicates that the
facility predicted to close currently has low profitability levels.
As for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category, based on SBA size definitions for the affected industries and
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified as small businesses
27 of the 113 companies owning affected miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing facilities. This constitutes 24 percent of the affected
businesses. Although small businesses represent 24 percent of the
companies within the source category, they are expected to incur 6
percent of the total industry compliance costs of $75 million.
According to EPA's economic assessment, there is one small firm with
compliance costs equal to or greater than 3 percent of their sales. In
addition, there are three small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between
1 and 3 percent.
An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by
the proposed subpart FFFF. The analysis shows that of the 49 facilities
owned by affected small firms, one is expected to shut down after the
implementation of the proposed NESHAP.
It should be noted that the baseline economic condition of the
facility predicted to close affects the closure estimate provided by
the economic model, i.e., facilities which are already experiencing
adverse economic conditions will be more severely impacted than those
that are not, and that the facility predicted to close appears to have
low profitability levels currently.
In summary, this action will affect 59 companies, out of 171
affected companies, owning coating and organic chemical manufacturing
facilities as small businesses. Small firms will incur approximately
$8.3 million of the total industry compliance costs of $91 million. A
total of three small firms will have compliance costs equal to or
greater than 3 percent of their sales, and eight small firms will have
cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent. Two facilities owned by
affected small firms are expected to shut down after the implementation
of this action.
Although the proposed NESHAP will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to limit the impact of the proposed NESHAP on small entities. We
have worked closely with the National Paint and Coatings Association,
the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, the Adhesives
and Sealants Council, the American Chemical Council, and the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association. These trade organizations,
which represent the majority of facilities covered by these subparts,
have represented their members at stakeholder meetings throughout the
standards development process. We worked with the coating manufacturers
to minimize the overlap of MACT standards and coordinate subpart HHHHH
with MACT standards for coating applications. We worked with the small
chemical manufacturers to develop a format for the process vent
standard that is reasonable for the production of chemicals using batch
processing in nondedicated equipment. We provide several alternative
ways to comply with the standards to allow as much flexibility as
possible. Emissions averaging and the pollution prevention alternative
standards help those small entities that have been proactive in
reducing their HAP emissions and usage, respectively. Another
alternative standard requires the outlet concentration of the control
device to be less than 20 ppmv. Under this alternative, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are greatly reduced. In addition, we have
included in the preamble guidance for Part 70 requirements to minimize
Title V permit modifications for owners and operators that make
frequent changes to their processes. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed NESHAP on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the proposed NESHAP will
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared two ICR documents (ICR Nos.
1969.01 and 1971.01), one for proposed subpart FFFF and the other for
proposed subpart HHHHH, and copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Copies may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/
icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves
them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Both proposed NESHAP would require maintenance inspections of the
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine
compliance.
The average annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden
per respondent for these collections (averaged over the first 3 years
after the effective date of the NESHAP) is estimated to be 72 labor
hours per year at a cost of $3,200 for proposed subpart FFFF, and 79
labor hours per year at a cost of $3,500 for proposed subpart HHHHH.
These estimates include one-time submissions of notifications and
precompliance reports; preparation of a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the
procedures in the plan were not followed; preparation of semiannual
compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup
costs associated with the monitoring requirements for the 3-year period
of the ICR are estimated at $256,000/yr for proposed subpart FFFF and
$10,000/yr for proposed subpart HHHHH. Average operation and
maintenance costs associated with the monitoring requirements for the
3-year period are estimated at $92,000/yr for proposed subpart FFFF and
$34,000/yr for proposed subpart HHHHH.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of

[[Page 16180]]

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after April 4, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by May 6, 2002. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comment on the information requirements
contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G, 2F,
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 15, 18, 25, 25A, 305, 316, 320, 624, 625, 1624, 1625,
8260, and 8270. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches
to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA
methods. The search and review results have been documented and placed
in the docket for these NESHAP (Docket A-96-04). The search for
emissions monitoring procedures for measuring emissions of the HAP or
surrogates subject to emission limitations in these NESHAP identified
19 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in
lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that 13 of the candidate consensus
standards would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, and validation data. The 13 standards are: ASME C00031
or Performance Test Code 19-10-1981, ASTM D3154-91 (1995), ASTM D3464-
96, ASTM D3796-90 (1998), ASTM D5835-95, ASTM D6060-96, ASTM E337-84
(Reapproved 1996), CAN/CSA Z2232.2-M-86, European Norm (EN) 12619
(1999), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ISO 9096:1992, ISO 10396:1993, and ISO
10780:1994. Of the six remaining candidate consensus standards, the
following five are under development or under EPA review: ASME/BSR MFC
12M, ASME/BSR MFC 13m, ASTM D5790-95 (1995), ISO/DIS 12039, and ISO/
FDIS 14965. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting
these candidate consensus standards after their development and further
review by EPA is completed.
One consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases
described below for inclusion in these NESHAP in addition to the
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 (Docket A-96-04) is a suitable alternative
to Method 18 where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section
1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 (Docket citation of table); and the target
concentration is between 150 ppb(v) and 100 ppm(v).
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble.
As a result, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference (IBR) ASTM
6420-99 into 40 CFR 63.14 for application with these subparts FFFF and
HHHHH of part 63. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a gas
chromatography (GC) option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will
allow the continued use of other GC configurations.
The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration
requirements proposed in this proposed rulemaking and specifically
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary
consensus standards. Commenters should also explain why this regulation
should adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of EPA's
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (for other than Method 301, 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A, was used).
Table 9 of the proposed subpart FFFF and Table 8 of the proposed
subpart HHHHH list the EPA testing methods and performance standards
included in the proposed regulations. Most of the standards have been
used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under
Sec. 63.7(f), the proposal also allows any State or source to apply to
EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of any of the
EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in the proposed
NESHAP.

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

These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because they are not significant regulatory actions under
Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

[[Page 16181]]

Dated: February 20, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart FFFF to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What this Subpart Covers

63.2430 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.2440 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.2450 What emission limitations and work practice standards must
I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.2455 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.2460 How do I determine whether vent streams and wastewater
streams meet the applicability criteria?
63.2465 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.2470 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
63.2475 What are my monitoring device installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.2480 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.2485 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
63.2490 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

Alternative Means of Compliance

63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?
63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?
63.2505 How do I comply with the alternative standard?
63.2510 How may I transfer wastewater to a treatment unit that I
do not own or operate?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2525 What records must I keep?
63.2530 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Continuous Process Vents
Table 2 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Batch Process Vents
Table 3 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Wastewater Streams, Waste Management Units, and Liquid
Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
Table 4 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Storage Tanks
Table 5 to Subpart FFFF--Work Practice Standards for Equipment
Leaks, Closed-Vent Systems, and Heat Exchange Systems
Table 6 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Transfer Operations
Table 7 to Subpart FFFF--Emission Limitations for Halogenated Vent
Streams that are Controlled with a Combustion Device
Table 8 to Subpart FFFF--Operating Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Control Devices, Recovery Devices, and Wastewater
Treatment Units
Table 9 to Subpart FFFF--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 10 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards for Continuous Process Vents
Table 11 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards for Batch Process Vents
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards for Wastewater Streams,
Waste Management Units, and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an
MCPU
Table 13 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards for Storage Tanks
Table 14 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Work Practice
Standards for Equipment Leaks, Closed-Vent Systems, and Heat
Exchange Systems
Table 15 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards for Transfer Operations
Table 16 to Subpart FFFF--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations for Halogenated Vent Streams Controlled with a
Combustion Device
Table 17 to Subpart FFFF--Continuous Compliance with Emission
Limitations
Table 18 to Subpart FFFF--Continuous Compliance with Operating
Limits
Table 19 to Subpart FFFF--Continuous Compliance with Work Practice
Standards
Table 20 to Subpart FFFF--Requirements for Reports
Table 21 to Subpart FFFF--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart FFFF

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

What this Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.2430 What is the purpose of this subpart?

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

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

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

[[Page 16182]]

storage tanks to the MCPU according to the provisions contained in
Sec. 63.2440(c).
(1) The material or family of materials is described in paragraph
(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section.
(i) An organic chemical or chemicals classified in SIC code 282,
283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section.
(ii) An organic chemical or chemicals classified in NAICS Code
3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, or 3259, except for NAICS Codes
325351 and 325181 and as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(iii) Quaternary ammonium compounds and ammonium sulfate produced
with caprolactam.
(iv) Hydrazine.
(v) Organic solvents recovered using nondedicated solvent recovery
devices.
(2) It processes, uses, or produces HAP.
(3) Except for process vents from batch operations within a
chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU), as identified in
Sec. 63.100(j)(4), it is not part of an affected source under another
subpart of this part 63. For this situation, the MCPU is the same as
the CMPU as defined in Sec. 63.100. For these MCPU, you are subject
only to the requirements for batch process vents in this subpart.
(c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations
specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section.
(1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the CAA.
(2) Any MCPU that manufactures ammonium sulfate as a by-product, if
the slurry entering the by-product manufacturing process contains 50
parts per million by weight (ppmw) HAP or less (or 10 ppmw benzene or
less). You must retain information, data, and analysis to document the
HAP concentration in the entering slurry in order to claim this
exemption.
(3) The production of coatings including, but not limited to, inks,
paints, and adhesives that are manufactured solely by mixing and that
are part of an affected source under subpart HHHHH of this part 63.

Sec. 63.2440 What parts of my plant do the requirements in this
subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing affected source.
(b) The miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing affected
source is the facilitywide collection of MCPU and associated ancillary
equipment such as heat exchange systems, waste water and waste
management units, and transfer operations that are associated with
manufacturing materials described in Sec. 63.2435(b)(1).
(c) You must consider storage tanks to be part of the MCPU if
either the input to the storage tank from the miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process (either directly or through other
storage tanks assigned to the MCPU) is greater than or equal to the
input from any other process, or the output from the storage tank to
the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process (either
directly or through other storage tanks assigned to the MCPU) is
greater than or equal to the output to any other process. If the
greatest input to and/or output from a shared storage tank is the same
for two or more processes, including at least one miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process, you may assign the storage tank to any
process unit that has the greatest input or output. If the use varies
from year to year, then you must base the determination on the
utilization that occurred during the year preceding [date of
publication of final rule]
or, if the storage tank was not in operation
during that year, you must base the use on the expected use for the
first 5-year period after startup. You must include the determination
in the Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.2515(e).
(d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after April 4, 2002, and you meet
the applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction.
(e) An MCPU dedicated to manufacturing a single material (or
concurrent production of multiple materials) is a new affected source
if the MCPU has the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any one HAP
or 25 tons per year of combined HAP, and you commenced construction of
the MCPU after April 4, 2002.
(f) An affected source is reconstructed if you commenced
reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2 after April 4, 2002, except that
the phrase ``affected or previously unaffected stationary source'' in
Sec. 63.2 shall mean ``affected source'' for the purposes of this
subpart.
(g) An MCPU that is a major source in and by itself and is
dedicated to manufacturing a single material (or concurrent production
of multiple materials) is reconstructed if you commenced reconstruction
as defined in Sec. 63.2 after April 4, 2002, except that the phrase
``affected or previously unaffected stationary source'' in Sec. 63.2
means ``MCPU'' for the purposes of this subpart.
(h) An MCPU that is also a CMPU under Sec. 63.100 is reconstructed
for the purposes of this subpart if, and only if, the CMPU meets the
requirements for reconstruction in Sec. 63.100(l)(2).
(i) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.

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

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source before
the effective date of this subpart, then you must comply with the
requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart no later
than the effective date of the subpart.
(2) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source after
the effective date of this subpart, then you must comply with the
requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source on the effective date,
you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date of this
subpart. If you add equipment to your existing affected source after
the effective date and before the date 3 years after the effective
date, you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in
this subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date of
this subpart for the added equipment.
(c) If you add equipment to your existing affected source after the
date 3 years after the effective date, you must comply with the
requirements for existing sources in this subpart upon startup of the
added equipment.
(d) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a reconstructed source must be in compliance with the
requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon
startup.
(2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with the
requirements for existing sources in this subpart by the date 1 year
after the date the area source becomes a major source.

[[Page 16183]]

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.2515
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.2515 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations and work practice
standards in this subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.2450 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limitation and work practice
standard in Tables 1 through 7 of this subpart that applies to you as
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Table 1 of this subpart specifies emission limitations and work
practice standards for continuous process vents.
(2) Table 2 of this subpart specifies emission limitations and work
practice standards for batch process vents.
(3) Table 3 of this subpart specifies emission limitations and work
practice standards for wastewater streams, waste management units, and
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU.
(4) Table 4 of this subpart specifies emission limitations and work
practice standards for storage tanks.
(5) Table 5 of this subpart specifies work practice standards for
equipment leaks, closed-vent systems, and heat exchange systems.
(6) Table 6 of this subpart specifies emission limitations and work
practice standards for transfer operations.
(7) Table 7 of this subpart specifies emission limitations for
halogenated vent streams that are controlled with a combustion device.
(b) You must determine the total resource effectiveness value for
each continuous process vent using the procedures described in
Sec. 63.2460(a).
(c) If an emission stream contains halogen atoms, you must
determine whether it meets the definition of a halogenated stream using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.2460(b).
(d) You must either designate a wastewater stream as an affected
wastewater stream or determine that it is an affected wastewater stream
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.2460(c).
(e) You must meet each operating limit for control devices,
recovery devices, and wastewater treatment units in Table 8 of this
subpart that applies to you.
(f) All emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice
standards in Tables 1 through 8 of this subpart apply to new,
reconstructed, and existing sources, unless limited to specific sources
within the tables.
(g) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may apply to EPA for approval
to use an alternative to an emission limitation or work practice
standard in Tables 1 through 8 of this subpart.
(h) Opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, is
allowed at any time conditions require to avoid unsafe conditions.
(i) The emission limitations in Table 4 of this subpart for control
devices used to control emissions from storage tanks do not apply
during periods of planned routine maintenance. Periods of planned
routine maintenance of each control device, during which the control
device does not meet the emission limitation specified in Table 4 of
this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.2455 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(1) During the period, if any, between the compliance date
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.2445 and the date upon
which continuous monitoring systems have been installed and validated
and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a
log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and
emissions control equipment.
(2) [Reserved].
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) If you use a boiler or process heater to comply with an
emission limitation, then the vent stream must be introduced into the
flame zone of the boiler or process heater.
(e) After you treat an affected wastewater stream or residual
removed from an affected wastewater stream, it is no longer subject to
this subpart.
(f) You are not required to conduct a performance test or design
evaluation when you use any of the units specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this section to meet emission limitations specified in
Sec. 63.2450. You also are exempt from the continuous compliance,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in Secs. 63.2485
through 63.2530 for any of these units. This exemption applies to units
used as control devices or wastewater treatment units.
(1) A hazardous waste incinerator that has been issued a final
permit under 40 CFR part 270 and that complies with the requirements of
40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or that has certified compliance with the
interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart O;
(2) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of
44 megawatts (150 million British thermal units per hour) or greater;
(3) A boiler or process heater into which the vent stream is
introduced with the primary fuel or is used as the primary fuel; or
(4) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste that meets
the requirements in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section:
(i) The boiler or process heater has been issued a final permit
under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part
266, subpart H; or
(ii) The boiler or process heater has certified compliance with the
interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
(g) When this subpart requires the use of a control device, you may
use either a single control device or any combination of control
devices.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.2460 How do I determine whether vent streams and wastewater
streams meet the applicability criteria?

(a) Determine affected continuous process vents. For each
continuous process vent from an MCPU, you must determine the total
resource effectiveness (TRE) index value as specified in
Sec. 63.115(d), except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) When a TRE index value of 4.0 is referred to in Sec. 63.115(d),
TRE index values of 2.6 for existing sources and 5.0 for new and
reconstructed sources apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(2) When Sec. 63.115(d) refers to ``emission reductions specified
in Sec. 63.113(a),'' the emission limitations and work practice
standards specified in Table 1 of this subpart apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(b) Determine halogenated vent streams. To determine whether an
emission stream from a process vent, waste management unit, or transfer
operation is halogenated, you must calculate the halogen atom levels as

[[Page 16184]]

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For continuous process vents, calculate the mass emission rate
of halogen atoms contained in the organic compounds according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v).
(2) For emission streams from batch process vents, waste management
units, and transfer operations, calculate the concentration of each
organic compound containing halogen atoms in accordance with
Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v)(A), multiply each concentration by the applicable
number of halogen atoms in the organic compound, and sum the resulting
halogen atom concentrations associated with each organic compound.
(c) Determine affected wastewater streams. For each wastewater
stream that you generate, you must either designate the wastewater
stream as an affected wastewater stream according to the procedures in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or you must determine whether the
wastewater stream is an affected wastewater stream according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Each affected
wastewater stream is subject to the requirements in Table 3 of this
subpart.
(1) You may designate any wastewater stream to be an affected
wastewater stream. You do not have to determine the concentration or
flow rate for any designated affected wastewater stream.
(2) For wastewater streams that you do not designate as affected
wastewater streams, you must use the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.144(b) and (c) to establish the concentrations and flow rates,
except as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The phrase ``Group 1 wastewater stream'' in Sec. 63.144 means
``affected wastewater stream'' for the purposes of this subpart.
(ii) The phrase ``Group 2 wastewater stream'' means any wastewater
stream that is not an affected wastewater stream for the purposes of
this subpart.

Sec. 63.2465 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?

(a) If you have an existing affected source on the effective date
of this subpart, you must conduct all initial compliance demonstrations
required in Tables 10 through 16 of this subpart that apply to you
prior to the date 3 years after the effective date.
(b) If you have a new affected source or a reconstructed source,
you must conduct all initial compliance demonstrations required in
Tables 10 through 16 of this subpart that apply to you no later than
180 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.2445(a). You must also comply with Sec. 63.7(a)(2) for
performance tests.
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source, you must conduct
all initial compliance demonstrations required in Tables 10 through 16
of this subpart that apply to you in accordance with the schedule
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For those parts of the source that are an existing affected
source, you must conduct all initial compliance demonstrations prior to
the date 1 year after the area source becomes a major source.
(2) For those parts of the source that are a new affected source or
reconstructed source, you must conduct all initial compliance
demonstrations no later than 180 calendar days after startup. You must
also comply with Sec. 63.7(a)(2) for performance tests.
(d) You must conduct a subsequent performance test or compliance
demonstration equivalent to an initial compliance demonstration within
180 days of a change in the worst-case conditions.

Sec. 63.2470 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?

(a) You must conduct each performance test, design evaluation, and
other procedure specified in Tables 10 through 16 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) When you are required to calculate uncontrolled emissions from
batch vents according to Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i), use any applicable
option except you may not calculate emissions from heating using
Equation 13 of subpart GGG of this part, or emissions from
depressurization using the procedures in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(1)
through (4).
(c) Requirements for performance tests. Each performance test must
be conducted according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1), except
that performance tests for HAP from batch process vents must be
conducted according to paragraph (c)(3) of this section and not under
normal operating conditions as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
Performance tests also must be conducted using the methods and
procedures specified in Table 9 of this subpart and in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (15) of this section.
(1) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(2) When you conduct a performance test for a control device used
to control emissions from continuous process vents, you must conduct
the test according to Sec. 63.997.
(3) When you conduct a performance test for a control device used
to control emissions from batch process vents, you must conduct the
test according to Sec. 63.1257(b)(8).
(4) When you conduct a performance test for a wastewater treatment
unit or control device, you must conduct the test according to
Sec. 63.145.
(5) You do not have to conduct a performance test for any
condenser, but you must have the results of continuous direct
measurement of the condenser outlet gas temperature to be used in
determining concentrations as part of the design evaluation specified
in paragraph (d) of this section.
(6) If you elect to use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14),
to measure the percent reduction of HAP as specified in Table 9 of this
subpart, you must conduct the performance test using the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) In conducting the performance test, collect and analyze samples
as specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99. You must collect samples
simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the combustion device. If the
performance test is for a combustion control device, you must first
determine which HAP are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,
uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or the screening
procedure described in Method 18. Quantify the emissions for the HAP
present in the inlet gas stream for both the inlet and outlet gas
streams for the combustion device.
(ii) Calculate the concentration and emission rate of total organic
HAP (E_HAP) in the inlet and outlet vent streams using the
equations in Secs. 63.115(c)(3)(ii) and 63.116(c)(4)(ii).
(iii) Calculate the percent reduction in total organic HAP using
the equation in Sec. 63.116(c)(4)(iii).
(7) If you elect to use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
to determine the percent reduction efficiency of a vent stream
controlled in a noncombusion device as specified in Table 9 of this
subpart, you must conduct the performance test in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Calibrate the instrument on the predominant HAP.
(ii) The results are acceptable if the response from the high level
calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation for the
response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on
its most sensitive scale.

[[Page 16185]]

(iii) Calculate the inlet and outlet concentrations of Total
Organic Compound (TOC) per Section 8 of Method 25A. Calculate the
emission rate of TOC (E_TOC) in the inlet and outlet vent
streams using the equation in Sec. 63.116(c)(4)(ii).
(iv) Calculate the percent reduction in TOC using the equation in
Sec. 63.116(c)(4)(iii).
(8) If you elect to use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14),
to measure the total concentration of HAP at the outlet of the control
device, as specified in Table 9 of this subpart, you must conduct the
performance test using procedures in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) For a combustion control device, you must first determine which
HAP are present in the inlet gas stream using process knowledge or the
screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the
performance test, analyze samples collected at the outlet of the
combustion control device as specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99
for the HAP compounds present at the inlet of the control device.
(ii) The total HAP concentration (C_HAP) is the sum of
the concentrations of the individual HAP components and must be
computed for each run using the equation in Sec. 63.115(c)(3)(ii).
(9) If you elect to use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
to measure the TOC concentration of the outlet vent stream as specified
in Table 9 of this subpart, you must conduct the performance test using
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Calibrate the instrument on the predominant HAP.
(ii) Conduct the performance test in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(9)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section as follows:
(A) The results are acceptable if the response from the high level
calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation for the
response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on
its most sensitive scale; and
(B) The span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 parts per
million by volume (ppmv).
(iii) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to
equation 25A-1 of Method 25A.
(10) If you elect to use Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
to determine the percent reduction of TOC of a vent stream controlled
in a combustion device as specified in Table 9 of this subpart, you
must conduct the performance test using the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Measure the total gaseous non-methane organic (TGNMO)
concentration of the inlet and outlet vent streams using the procedures
of Method 25, except that you may use Method 25A in lieu of Method 25
if the condition in either paragraph (c)(10)(i)(A) or (B) of this
section is met.
(A) The concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control are such to result in exhaust TGNMO
concentrations of 50 ppmv or less.
(B) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated TGNMO concentration at the control device exhaust is 50
ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration.
(ii) Using the TGNMO concentration from Method 25 or the TOC
concentration from method 25A, calculate the emission rate of TOC
(E_TOC) in the inlet and outlet vent streams according to
paragraph (c)(7)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Calculate the percent reduction in TOC according to paragraph
(c)(7)(iv) of this section.
(11) You must use Method 26 in appendix A to part 60 to measure
hydrogen halide and halogen concentrations as specified in Table 9 of
this subpart, and you must conduct the performance test using the
procedures in paragraphs (c)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Use a minimum sampling time of 1 hour.
(ii) Use Method 26A in lieu of Method 26 when measuring emissions
at the outlet of a scrubber where the potential for mist carryover
exists.
(12) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to
paragraph (c)(12)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If you elect to comply with any of the percent reduction
emission limitations in Tables 1 through 6, and formaldehyde is the
principal HAP component (i.e., greater than 50 percent of the HAP in
the stream by volume), than you must use method 316 or Method 320 (40
CFR part 63, appendix A) to measure formaldehyde at the inlet and
outlet of the control device. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde
as a surrogate for the percent reduction in total HAP emissions.
(ii) If you elect to comply with any of the outlet TOC
concentration limitations in Tables 1 through 6 of this subpart, and
the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains
greater than 10 percent (volume concentration) formaldehyde, you must
use Method 316 or Method 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to separately
determine the formaldehyde concentration. Calculate the total HAP or
TOC emissions by totaling the formaldehyde emissions measured using
Method 316 or 320 and the other HAP emissions measured using Method 18
or 25/25A according to Table 9 of this subpart.
(13) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains carbon disulfide, you must conduct emissions testing according
to paragraphs (c)(13)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If you elect to comply with any of the percent reduction
emission limitations in Tables 1 through 6 of this subpart, and carbon
disulfide is the principal HAP component (i.e., greater than 50 percent
of the HAP in the stream by volume), then you must use Method 18 or
Method 15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to measure carbon disulfide at
the inlet and outlet of the control device. Use the percent reduction
in carbon disulfide as a surrogate for the percent reduction in total
HAP emissions.
(ii) If you elect to comply with any of the outlet TOC
concentration limitations in Table 1 through 6 of this subpart, and the
uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains greater
than 10 percent (volume concentration) carbon disulfide, you must use
Method 18 or Method 15 to separately determine the carbon disulfide
concentration. Calculate the total HAP or TOC emissions by totaling the
formaldehyde emissions measured using Method 18 or 15 and the other HAP
emissions measured using Method 18 or 25/25A according to Table 9 of
this subpart.
(14) You may use ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 63.14) in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, under the conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(14)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) If the target compound(s) is listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion
by volume and 100 ppmv.
(ii) If the target compound(s) is not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, but is potentially detected by mass spectrometry, an
additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as
detailed in Section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, met,
documented, and submitted with the performance test report even if you
do not use a moisture condenser or the compound is not considered
soluble.
(iii) If a minimum of one sample/analysis cycle is completed at
least every 15 minutes.

[[Page 16186]]

(15) Three test runs are required for each performance test.
(d) Design evaluation. When you conduct a design evaluation, you
must follow the procedures in Sec. 63.1257(a)(1). The design evaluation
must also include the value(s) and basis for the operating limit(s) to
be monitored as specified in Table 8 of this subpart.
(e) Establishing operating limits during performance tests. During
the period of each performance test conducted according to paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) of this section for any type of control device listed in
Table 8 of this subpart, you must collect operating parameter
monitoring system data, average the operating parameter data over the
test period, determine the operating limit(s) to be monitored for that
control device, and set limits according to paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
of this section. You may also elect to establish additional operating
limit(s) for conditions other than those under which the performance
test was conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit to be established is a maximum, it must
be based on the average of the values for each of the three test runs.
(2) If the operating limit to be established is a minimum, it must
be based on the average of the values for each of the three test runs.
(3) If you elect to establish additional operating limits, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The additional operating limits may be based on the results of
the performance test and supplementary information such as engineering
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations. These limits may be
established for conditions as unique as individual emission episodes
for a batch process. You must provide rationale in the precompliance
report for the specific level for each operating limit, including any
data and calculations used to develop the limit and a description of
why the limit indicates proper operation of the control device. The
procedures provided in this paragraph (e)(3)(i) have not been approved
by the Administrator and determination of the operating limit using
these procedures is subject to review and approval by the
Administrator.
(ii) If you elect to establish separate monitoring levels for
different emission episodes within a batch process, you must maintain
records in your daily schedule or log of processes indicating each
point at which you change from one operating limit to another, even if
the duration of the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15
minutes. You must maintain a daily schedule or log of processes
according to Sec. 63.2525(a)(5).
(f) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet
HAP emissions less than 1 ton/yr, you must establish an operating
limit(s) for a parameter(s) that you will measure and record at least
once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block, as defined in
Sec. 63.2475(a)(5) or (b)(3)) to verify that the control device is
operating properly. You may elect to measure the same parameter(s) that
is required for control devices that control inlet HAP emissions equal
to or greater than 1 ton/yr as specified in Table 8 of this subpart. If
the parameter will not be measured continuously, you must request
approval of your proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You
must identify the operating limit(s) and the measurement frequency, and
you must provide rationale to support how these measurements
demonstrate the control device is operating properly.
(g) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. (1)
Combustion Devices. If you use a combustion device to comply with an
outlet concentration emission limitation, you must correct the actual
TOC, organic HAP, and hydrogen halide and halogen concentrations to 3
percent oxygen if you add supplemental gases, as defined in
Sec. 63.2550, to the vent stream or manifold. You must use the
integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3A or 3B of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the actual oxygen concentration
(%0_2d). You must take samples during the same time that you
take the TOC or total organic HAP or hydrogen halides and halogen
samples. Use Equation 1 of this section to correct the concentration to
3 percent oxygen (Cc):
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.000

Where:

C_c = concentration of TOC or total organic HAP or hydrogen
halide and halogen corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry basis, ppmv;
C_m = total concentration of TOC or total organic HAP or
hydrogen halide and halogen in vented gas stream, average of samples,
dry basis, ppmv;
%0_2d = concentration of oxygen measured in vented gas
stream, dry basis, percent by volume.

(2) Noncombustion devices. If you use a control device other than a
combustion device to comply with a TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide
outlet concentration emission limitation, you must correct the actual
concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 2 of this section;
you may use process knowledge and representative operating data to
determine the fraction of the total flow due to supplemental gas:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.001

Where:

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

(h) Combination of batch vents with other vents. If other vents are
manifolded with batch process vents, you must demonstrate initial
compliance for the other vents either as part of the initial compliance
demonstration for the batch vents, or you must conduct multiple
demonstrations (one for the batch vents, and one or more for the other
vents).

Sec. 63.2475 What are my monitoring device installation, operation,
and maintenance requirements?

(a) Each continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be
installed, operated, and maintained according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, and according to paragraph

[[Page 16187]]

(a)(2) of this section, except as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section. For any CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8, you
must also comply with appendix F, procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60.
(i) If you wish to use a CEMS other than an Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 to measure hydrochloric acid (HCl) before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8.
(ii) [Reserved].
(2) You must determine the calibration gases and reporting units
for TOC CEMS in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of
this section.
(i) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15
requirements, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using
either process knowledge of the control device inlet stream or the
screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream.
(ii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the
predominant HAP and report the results as carbon (C₁), and
use Method 25A or any approved alternative as the reference method for
the relative accuracy tests.
(iii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant HAP
using either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18
on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor on the
predominant HAP, and report the results as C₁. Use Method
18, ASTM D6420-99, or any approved alternative as the reference method
for the relative accuracy tests, and report the results as
C₁.
(3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to the
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(i) If you have an existing source, the requirement in
Sec. 63.8(e)(4) to conduct the performance evaluation not later than
180 days after the compliance date does not apply for the purposes of
this subpart. In this situation, you must conduct the performance
evaluation for the CEMS prior to the compliance date, and you must
submit the results to the Administrator in the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(ii) [Reserved].
(4) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
(5) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data from at least 75 percent of
the hours during the averaging period. To have a valid hour of data,
you must have four or more data points equally spaced over the 1-hour
period (or at least two data points during an hour when calibration,
quality assurance, or maintenance activities are being performed). An
operating block is a period of time from the beginning to end of a
batch process. Operating block averages may be used only for batch
processes.
(6) If you add supplemental gases, you must correct the measured
concentrations in accordance with Sec. 63.2470(g).
(b) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) Have valid data from at least 75 percent of the hours during
the averaging period.
(3) Determine the average of all recorded readings associated with
each operating limit for each operating day or operating block. An
operating block is a period of time that is equal to the time from the
beginning to end of a batch process. Operating block averages may be
used only for batch processes.
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(c) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.C or 0.75 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.C or 2 percent of the temperature
value, whichever is larger.
(4) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(5) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 11 deg.C.
(6) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 16.7 deg.C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(7) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(8) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(d) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (b) and (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the
flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(5) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(e) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (b) and (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.

[[Page 16188]]

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(f) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (b) and (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(g) If flow to a control device could be intermittent, you must
install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or outlet
of the control device to identify periods of no flow.

Sec. 63.2480 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to
Tables 10 through 16 of this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
8 of this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.2470(d), (e), or (f).
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.2515(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.2485 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating.
(c) You must not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, required quality assurance or control activities,
and periods of no flow in data averages and calculations used to report
emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a
minimum data availability requirement. You must use all of the data you
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.

Sec. 63.2490 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard in Tables 1 through 8 of this
subpart that applies to you according to methods specified in Tables
17, 18, and 19 of this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limitation and each operating limit in Tables 17 and 18 of
this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. You must also report each instance in which
you did not meet the requirements in Table 19 of this subpart that
apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emission
limitations and work practice standards in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.2520.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(d) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e).

Alternative Means of Compliance

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

(a) If you have an existing affected source, you may elect to
comply with the pollution prevention alternative requirements specified
in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section in lieu of the emission
limitations and work practice standards contained in Tables 2 through 5
of this subpart for any MCPU.
(1) You must reduce the production-indexed HAP consumption factor
(HAP factor) by at least 65 percent from a 3-year average baseline
beginning no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar years.
Alternatively, for a process that has been operating for less than 3
years but more than 1 year, you may calculate the baseline factor for
the time period from startup of the process until the present. For any
reduction in the HAP factor that you achieve by reducing HAP that are
also volatile organic compounds (VOC), you must demonstrate an
equivalent reduction in the production-indexed VOC consumption factor
(VOC factor) on a mass basis. For any reduction in the HAP factor that
you achieve by reducing a HAP that is not a VOC, you may not increase
the VOC factor.
(2) You may comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section for a series of processes, including situations where
multiple processes are merged, if you demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that the multiple processes were merged after the
baseline period into an existing process or processes.
(b) Exclusions. (1) You must comply with the emission limitations
and work practice standards contained in Tables 2 through 5 of this
subpart for all HAP that are generated in the MCPU and that are not
part of the HAP factor. Hydrogen halides that are generated as a result
of combustion control must be controlled according to the requirements
of Table 7 of this subpart.
(2) You may not merge nondedicated formulation or nondedicated
solvent recovery processes with any other processes.
(3) You may not comply with paragraph (a) of this section for
transfer operations that are subject to the emission limitations and
work practice standards in Table 6 of this subpart.
(c) Initial compliance procedures. To demonstrate initial
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, you must prepare a
demonstration summary in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this
section and calculate baseline and target annual HAP and VOC factors in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section.
(1) Demonstration summary. You must prepare a pollution prevention
demonstration summary that contains, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section for each MCPU for
which you comply with paragraph (a) of this section. You must include
the demonstration summary in the Precompliance report required in Table
20 of this subpart and Sec. 63.2520(c).
(i) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure and
record consumption of HAP and VOC compounds.
(ii) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure
and record production of the product(s).
(iii) Supporting documentation for the descriptions provided in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this

[[Page 16189]]

section including, but not limited to, operator log sheets and copies
of daily, monthly, and annual inventories of materials and products.
You must show how this documentation will be used to calculate the
annual factors required in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Baseline factors. You must calculate baseline HAP and VOC
factors by dividing the consumption of total HAP and total VOC by the
production rate, per process, for the first 3-year period in which the
process was operational, beginning no earlier than the period
consisting of the 1994 through 1996 calendar years. Alternatively, for
a process that has been operational for less than 3 years, but more
than 1 year, the baseline factors must be established for the time
period from startup of the process until April 4, 2002.
(3) Target annual factors. You must calculate a target annual HAP
factor that is equal to or less than 35 percent of the baseline HAP
factor. For each reduction in a HAP that is also a VOC, you must
calculate a target annual VOC factor that is lower than the baseline
VOC factor by an equivalent amount on a mass basis. For each reduction
in a HAP that is not a VOC, the target annual VOC factor must be equal
to or less than the baseline VOC factor.
(d) Continuous compliance requirements. You must calculate annual
rolling average values of the HAP and VOC factors (annual factors) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section. To show continuous compliance, the annual factors
must be equal to or less than the target annual factors calculated
according to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(1) To calculate the annual factors, you must divide the
consumption of both total HAP and total VOC by the production rate, per
process, for 12-month periods at the frequency specified in either
paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, as applicable.
(2) For continuous processes, you must calculate the annual factors
every 30 days for the 12-month period preceding the 30th day (i.e.,
annual rolling average calculated every 30 days). A process with both
batch and continuous operations is considered a continuous process for
the purposes of this section.
(3) For batch processes, you must calculate the annual factors
every 10 batches for the 12-month period preceding the 10th batch
(i.e., annual rolling average calculated every 10 batches), except as
specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) If you produce more than 10 batches during a month, you must
calculate the annual factors at least once during that month.
(ii) If you produce less than 10 batches in a 12-month period, you
must calculate the annual factors for the number of batches in the 12-
month period since the previous calculations.
(e) Records. You must keep records of HAP and VOC consumption,
production, and the rolling annual HAP and VOC factors for each MCPU
for which you are complying with paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) Reporting. (1) You must include the pollution-prevention
demonstration summary in the Precompliance report required by Table 20
of this subpart and Sec. 63.2520(c).
(2) You must identify all days when the annual factors were above
the target factors in the compliance reports.

Sec. 63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?

(a) For an existing source, you may elect to comply with the
percent reduction emission limitations in Tables 1 through 4 of this
subpart by complying with the emissions averaging provisions according
to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section for groups of as many as
40 emission points. Each batch process represents one emission point
for the purposes of emissions averaging.
(b) Exclusions. You may not include the emission points specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section in an emissions
average.
(1) Any emission points for which State authorities prohibit the
use of emissions averaging and require compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 4 of this
subpart.
(2) Emission points that are controlled as specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (iv) may not be used to calculate emissions averaging
credits, unless a nominal efficiency has been assigned according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.150(i). The nominal efficiency must exceed the
percent reduction required by Tables 1 through 4 of this subpart.
(i) Affected storage tanks controlled with an internal floating
roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.1063(a)(1)(i), or an
external floating roof meeting the specifications of
Sec. 63.1063(a)(1)(ii).
(ii) Emission points controlled with a flare.
(iii) Waste management units controlled as specified in
Secs. 63.133 through 63.137.
(iv) Wastewater treated in a steam stripper meeting the
specifications in Sec. 63.138(d).
(3) Emission streams controlled to an outlet concentration less
than or equal to 20 ppmv may not be used in any averaging group.
(4) Maintenance wastewater streams and wastewater streams treated
in biological treatment units may not be included in any averaging
group.
(5) Processes which have been permanently shut down and storage
tanks permanently taken out of HAP service may not be included in any
averaging group.
(6) Emission points already controlled on or before November 15,
1990 may not be used to generate emissions averaging credits, unless
the level of control has been increased after November 15, 1990. In
these cases, credit will be allowed only for the increase in control
after November 15, 1990.
(7) Emission points controlled to comply with a State or Federal
rule other than this subpart may not be included in an emissions
averaging group, unless the level of control has been increased after
November 15, 1990, above what is required by the other State or Federal
rule. Only the control above what is required by the other State or
Federal rule will be credited. However, if an emission point has been
used to generate emissions averaging credit in an approved emissions
average, and the point is subsequently made subject to a State or
Federal rule other than this subpart, the point can continue to
generate emissions averaging credit for the purpose of complying with
the previously approved average.
(c) Compliance procedures. To demonstrate compliance with the
emissions averaging provisions, you must comply with the requirements
of paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Emissions averaging plan. You must develop and submit for
approval an emissions averaging plan according to paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section.
(i) The emissions averaging plan must 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
permitting authority, greater risk to human health or the environment
than if the emission points were controlled according to Tables 1
through 4 of this subpart.
(ii) The demonstration of hazard or risk equivalency must be made
to the satisfaction of the operating permit authority, and we may
require you to use specific methodologies and procedures such as any
guidance that

[[Page 16190]]

we prepare or any other technically sound information or methods.
(iii) An emissions averaging plan that does not demonstrate hazard
or risk equivalency to our satisfaction will not be approved. We may
require such adjustments to the emissions averaging plan as are
necessary in order to ensure that the average will not result in
greater hazard or risk to human health or the environment than would
result if the emission points were controlled according to the emission
limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 4 of this
subpart.
(iv) A hazard or risk equivalency demonstration must satisfy the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Be a quantitative, comparative chemical hazard or risk
assessment.
(B) Account for differences between averaging and nonaveraging
options in chemical hazard or risk to human health or the environment.
(C) Meet any requirements we set for such demonstrations.
(v) For all emission points included in emissions averaging, the
emissions averaging plan must include the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) The identification of all emission points in each emissions
average.
(B) The uncontrolled and controlled HAP emissions for all of the
emission points included to calculate the debits and credits in
paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of this section.
(C) The debit and credit calculations.
(D) The estimated values for all operating limits set according to
Sec. 63.2470(d), (e), or (f) and Table 8 of this subpart for each
emission point included in the averages.
(E) A statement that the initial and continuous compliance
demonstrations and associated reporting and recordkeeping in this
section for each emission point in the averages will be implemented
beginning on the compliance date.
(vi) You must submit the emissions averaging plan no later than 18
months prior to the compliance date of this subpart. We will determine
within 120 calendar days whether your emissions averaging plan presents
sufficient information. We will either approve the emissions averaging
plan, request changes, or request additional information from you. Once
we receive sufficient information, we will approve, disapprove, or
request changes to the plan within 120 days. If we disapprove the
emissions averaging plan, you must still be in compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 4
of this subpart by the compliance date.
(2) For all points included in an emissions average, you must
comply with the procedures that are specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Calculate and record monthly debits for all affected emission
points that are controlled to a level less stringent than required by
the emission limitations for those emission points. Use equations in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section to calculate debits.
(ii) Calculate and record monthly credits for all emission points
that are overcontrolled to compensate for the debits. Use equations in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section to calculate credits. All process
vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission points except those
specified in paragraph (b) of this section may be included in the
credit calculation.
(iii) Demonstrate that annual credits calculated according to
paragraph (c)(6) of this section are greater than or equal to debits
calculated according to paragraph (c)(5) of this section for the same
annual compliance period. The initial demonstration in the emissions
averaging plan or operating permit application that credit-generating
emission points will be capable of generating sufficient credits to
offset the debit-generating emission points must be made under
representative operating conditions. After the compliance date, actual
operating data must be used for all debit and credit calculations.
(iv) Demonstrate that debits calculated for a quarterly (3-month)
period according to paragraph (c)(5) of this section are not more than
1.30 times the credits for the same period calculated according to
paragraph (c)(6) of this section. You determine compliance for the
quarter 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 paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(3) You may not include emissions during periods of malfunction in
calculation of credits and debits. You may not include periods of
startup and shutdown for continuous processes in calculation of credits
and debits.
(4) During periods of monitoring deviations, you must adjust
credits and debits as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) Assign no credits to the credit-generating emission point.
(ii) Assign maximum debits to the debit-generating emission point.
(iii) You may demonstrate to the Administrator that full or partial
credits or debits should be assigned using the procedures in
Sec. 63.150(l).
(5) Debits. Debits are generated by the difference between the
actual emissions from an affected emission point that is uncontrolled
or controlled to a level less stringent than the applicable standard
and the emissions allowed for the affected emission point. Calculate
debits in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Calculate sourcewide debits using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.002

Where:

Debits and all terms of Equation 1 of this section are in units of
Mg/month, and;
EPV_iU = uncontrolled emissions from continuous process vent
i and batch process i calculated according to the procedures specified
in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section;
EPV_iA = actual emissions from each affected continuous
process vent i and batch process i that is uncontrolled or is
controlled to a level less stringent than the required 98 percent
reduction in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart. Calculate EPV_iA
using the procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section;
ES_iU = uncontrolled emissions from storage tank i calculated
according to the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this
section;
ES_iA = actual emissions from each affected storage vessel i
that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than
the required 95 percent reduction in Table 4 of this subpart. Calculate

[[Page 16191]]

ES_iA using the procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this
section;
EWW_iC = emissions from each affected wastewater stream i if
the wastewater stream had been managed and treated as specified in
Table 3 of this subpart. Calculate EWW_iC using the
procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section;
EWW_iA = actual emissions from each affected wastewater
stream i that is uncontrolled or has been managed and treated in a
manner that is less stringent than that specified in Table 3 of this
subpart. Calculate EWW_iA using the procedures in paragraph
(c)(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) Calculate emissions from process vents in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
calculate uncontrolled emissions for process vents using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2).
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
calculate actual emissions for process vents using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2) and (3), as applicable.
(C) As an alternative to the procedures described in paragraphs
(c)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, for continuous process vents,
you may calculate uncontrolled and actual emissions by the procedures
described in Sec. 63.150(g)(2). For purposes of complying with this
paragraph, the term ``recovery device'' in Sec. 63.150(g)(2) means
``process condenser.''
(iii) Calculate uncontrolled emissions from storage tanks in
accordance with the procedures described in Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(i).
Calculate actual emissions from storage tanks using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii) or (iii), as appropriate, except
that when Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(B) refers to the procedures in
Sec. 63.120(d) for determining percent reduction for a control device,
Sec. 63.1257(a)(1) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(iv) Calculate emissions from wastewater using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(5).
(6) Credits. Credits are generated by the difference between
emissions that are allowed for each affected and nonaffected emission
point, and the actual emissions from that affected or nonaffected
emission point that have been controlled after November 15, 1990 to a
level more stringent than what is required in this subpart or any other
State or Federal rule or statute. Calculate credits in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) Calculate sourcewide credits using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.003

Where:

Credits and all terms in Equation 2 of this section 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 a percent reduction
requirement in Table 1, 2, or 4 of this subpart that are controlled to
a level more stringent than the applicable percent reduction
requirement, and;
EPV1_iU = uncontrolled emissions from each affected
continuous process vent i and batch process i calculated according to
the procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(A) of this section;
EPV1_iA = actual emissions from each affected continuous
process vent i and batch process i that is controlled to a level more
stringent than 98 percent. Calculate EPV1_iA according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(B) of this section;
EPV2_iB = emissions from each nonaffected continuous process
vent i and batch process i at the baseline date. Calculate
EPV2_iB according to the procedures in paragraph
(c)(6)(iii)(C) of this section;
EPV2_iA = actual emissions from each nonaffected continuous
process vent i and batch process i that is controlled. Calculate
EPV2_iA according to the procedures in paragraph
(c)(6)(iii)(C) of this section;
ES1_iU = uncontrolled emissions from each affected storage
tank i calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iv)
of this section;
ES1_iA = actual emissions from each affected storage tank i
that is controlled to a level more stringent than 95 percent. Calculate
ES1_iA according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iv) of
this section;
ES2_iB = emissions from each nonaffected storage tank i at
the baseline date. Calculate ES2_iB according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iv) of this section;
ES2_iA = actual emissions from each nonaffected storage tank
i that is controlled. Calculate ES2_iA according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(iv) of this section;
EWW1_iC = emissions from each affected wastewater stream i if
the wastewater stream had been managed and treated as specified in
Table 3 of this subpart. Calculate EWW1_iC according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section;
EWW1_iA = emissions from each affected wastewater stream i
that is controlled to a level more stringent than if the wastewater
stream had been managed and treated as specified in Table 3 of this
subpart. Calculate EWW1_iA according to the procedures in
paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section;
EWW2_iB = emissions from each nonaffected wastewater stream i
at the baseline date. Calculate EWW2_iB according to the
procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section;
EWW2_iA = actual emissions from each nonaffected wastewater
stream i that is controlled. Calculate EWW2_iA according to
the procedures in paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section;
n = number of affected 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;

[[Page 16192]]

m = number of nonaffected emission points included in the emissions
average. The value of m is not necessarily the same for process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater;
D = discount factor equal to 0.9 for all credit-generating emission
points.

(ii) For an emission point controlled using a pollution prevention
measure, determine the nominal efficiency for calculating credits as
described in Sec. 63.150(j).
(iii) Calculate emissions from process vents in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Calculate uncontrolled emissions from affected process vents
according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(A) or (C) of this
section.
(B) Calculate actual emissions from affected process vents with a
nominal efficiency greater than 98 percent or a pollution prevention
measure that achieves reductions greater than 98 percent using Equation
3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.004

Where:
EPV1_iA = actual emissions from each affected continuous
process vent i or batch process i that is controlled to a level more
stringent than 98 percent;
EPV1_iU = uncontrolled emissions from each affected
continuous process vent i or batch process i;
N_eff = nominal efficiency of control device or pollution
prevention measure, percent.

(C) Calculate baseline and actual emissions from nonaffected
process vents according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(c)(2)(iii) and
(iv), except when the phrase ``paragraph (g)(2)'' is referred to in
Sec. 63.150(h)(2)(iii) and (iv), the provisions in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)
of this section apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(iv) Calculate uncontrolled emissions from storage tanks according
to the procedures described in paragraph Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(i).
Calculate actual and baseline emissions from storage tanks according to
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(h)(3), except when
Sec. 63.150(h)(3) refers to Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(i).
(v) Calculate emissions from wastewater using the procedures in
Sec. 63.150(h)(5).
(7) You must establish and comply with the operating limits for
each emission point in an emissions average according to Sec. 63.2470
and Table 8 of this subpart.
(d) Records. You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (4) of this section.
(1) All records specified in Sec. 63.2525.
(2) Calculations of the debits and credits according to paragraphs
(c)(5) and (6) of this section for the last quarter and the prior four
quarters.
(3) A current copy of the emissions averaging plan.
(4) The number of turnovers for each storage tank used in an
emissions average.
(e) Reporting. You must submit the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The emissions averaging plan as specified in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(2) The required information for compliance reports specified in
Sec. 63.2520(d) for each emission point in emission averages.
(3) The compliance reports must also include the information
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Any changes to the processes, storage tanks, or waste
management units included in an emissions average.
(ii) The calculation of the debits and credits for the reporting
period.
(iii) Changes to the emissions averaging plan which affect the
calculation methodology of uncontrolled or controlled emissions or the
hazard or risk equivalency determination.
(iv) Any changes to the operating limits monitored according to
paragraph (c)(7) of this section.

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

As an alternative to complying with the emission limitations and
work practice standards for process vents and storage tanks in Tables
1, 2, and 4 of this subpart, you may comply with the emission
limitations in paragraph (a) of this section and demonstrate initial
and continuous compliance in accordance with the requirements in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are specified in Secs. 63.2520 and 63.2525.
(a) Emission limitations and work practice standards. (1) You must
route vent streams through a closed-vent system to a control device
that reduces HAP emissions as specified in either paragraph (a)(1)(i)
or (ii) of this section.
(i) If you use a combustion control device, it must reduce HAP
emissions as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this
section.
(A) To an outlet TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less.
(B) To an outlet concentration of hydrogen halides and halogens of
20 ppmv or less.
(C) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section,
if you control halogenated vent streams emitted from a combustion
device followed by a scrubber, you may reduce the hydrogen halides and
halogens generated in the combustion device by ³95 percent by
weight in the scrubber and establish operating parameters for the
scrubber in accordance with Table 8 of this subpart.
(ii) If you use a noncombustion control device, it must reduce HAP
emissions to an outlet total organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or
less, and an outlet concentration of hydrogen halides and halogens of
50 ppmv or less.
(2) You must comply with the work practice standards for closed-
vent systems in Table 5 of this subpart.
(3) Any batch process vents within a process that are not
controlled according to this alternative standard must be controlled
according to the emission limitations and work practice standards in
Table 2 of this subpart.
(b) Initial compliance requirements. You demonstrate initial
compliance with the alternative standard if you comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install and begin to operate and maintain each CEMS in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section no later than the date 3
years after the effective date of this subpart.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the CEMS as specified in
Sec. 63.2475(a)(3).
(3) Submit the results of any determination of the target analytes
or predominant HAP in the Notification of Compliance Status.
(4) If you add supplemental gases to the vent stream or manifold,
determine either the oxygen concentration (if you use a combustion
device), or both the total vent stream and supplemental gas stream flow
rates (if you use a noncombustion device), and calculate the ratio in
Equation 1 or 2 of Sec. 63.2470

[[Page 16193]]

to use in correcting the measured concentrations for supplemental
gases.
(5) If you elect to comply with the requirement to reduce hydrogen
halides and halogens by ³95 percent by weight in paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(C) of this section, you must demonstrate initial compliance
by conducting a performance test and setting a site-specific operating
limit(s) for the scrubber in accordance with entry 2.b. in Table 16 of
this subpart. The applicable operating limits are specified in Table 8
of this subpart. You must submit the results of the initial compliance
demonstration in the Notification of Compliance Status.
(6) Comply with the requirements for closed-vent systems in entries
(c) and (d) of Table 14 of this subpart.
(c) Continuous compliance requirements. You demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in paragraph (a) of this
section according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section, you must install, operate, and maintain CEMS to measure TOC
and total hydrogen halide and halogen concentrations in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and in accordance with
Sec. 63.2475(a)(1), (2), and (4), and you must reduce the CEMS data as
specified in Sec. 63.2475(a)(5). If you add supplemental gases to the
vent stream or manifold, you must correct measured concentrations for
supplemental gases or monitor other operating parameters as specified
in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. The reduced results must be below
the concentration limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) Install CEMS to measure TOC in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) For noncombustion devices, install a CEMS that meets
Performance Specification 8, 9, or 15.
(B) For combustion devices, install a CEMS that meets Performance
Specification 8 and report the results as C₁.
(ii) Install CEMS to measure total halide and halogen
concentrations in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of
this section:
(A) Install a CEMS that meets Performance Specification 15 to
measure HCl; or
(B) If you wish to measure HCl using a CEMS other than an Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 15 before we promulgate performance
specifications for such monitors, you must prepare a monitoring plan
and submit it for approval in accordance with the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.8.
(iii) You do not need to monitor the hydrogen halide and halogen
concentrations if, based on process knowledge, you determine that the
emission stream does not contain hydrogen halides or halogens.
(iv) If you elect to comply with the requirement to reduce hydrogen
halides and halogens by ³95 percent by weight in paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(C) of this section, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Install, operate, and maintain CPMS for the scrubber as
specified in Sec. 63.2475(b) through (f), as applicable.
(B) Collect and reduce CPMS data for the scrubber in accordance
with the requirements specified in entry 5., 6., or 7. of Table 18 of
this subpart, as applicable.
(C) Maintain the daily or block average CPMS levels within the
ranges established during the initial performance test.
(2) You must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator as
specified in Sec. 63.2475(g).
(3) You must monitor and collect data according to Sec. 63.2485(b)
and (c).
(4) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards for closed-vent systems as specified in entries (i)
and (j) in Table 19 of this subpart.
(5) You must report each deviation according to Sec. 63.2490(b).
(6) You must comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
requirements in Sec. 63.2490(c) and (d).
(7) Correction for supplemental gases. If you add supplemental
gases to the vents or manifolds, you must either correct for
supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.2470(g) or comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(i) or (ii) of this section. If you
correct for supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.2470(g)(2) for
noncombustion control devices, you must evaluate the flow rates as
specified in paragraph (c)(7)(iii) of this section.
(i) Provisions for combustion devices. As an alternative to
correcting for supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.2470(g), you
must monitor residence time and firebox temperature according to the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(7)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
Monitoring of residence time may be accomplished by monitoring flowrate
into the combustion chamber.
(A) If complying with the alternative standard instead of complying
with an emission limitation of 95 percent or less, you must maintain a
minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum combustion chamber
temperature of 760 deg.C.
(B) If complying with the alternative standard instead of complying
with an emission limitation of 98 percent or less, you must maintain a
minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds and a minimum combustion chamber
temperature of 816 deg.C.
(ii) Provisions for dense gas systems. As an alternative to
correcting for supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.2470(g), for
noncombustion devices used to control emissions from dense gas systems,
as defined in Sec. 63.2550, you must monitor flowrate as specified in
paragraphs (d)(7)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the system flowrate
setpoint at which the average concentration is 5,000 ppmv TOC:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.005

Where:

Q_set = system flowrate setpoint, scfm;
E_an = annual emissions entering the control device, lbmoles/
yr.

(B) Annual emissions used in Equation 1 of this section must be
based on the actual mass of organic compounds entering the control
device as calculated from the most representative emissions inventory
data that you submitted within the 5 years before the Notification of
Compliance Status is due. You must recalculate the system flowrate
setpoint once every 5 years using the annual emissions from the most
representative emissions inventory data submitted during the 5-year
period after the previous calculation. Results of the initial
calculation must be included in the Notification of Compliance Status,
and recalculated values must be included in the next compliance report
after each recalculation. For all calculations after the initial
calculation, to use emissions inventory data calculated using
procedures other than those specified in Sec. 63.1257(d), you must
submit the emissions inventory data calculations and rationale for
their use in the Precompliance report, Notification of Process Change
report, or an application for a part 70 permit renewal or revision.
(C) In the Notification of Compliance Status, you may elect to
establish both a maximum daily average operating flowrate limit above
the flowrate setpoint and a reduced outlet concentration limit
corresponding to this flowrate limit. You may also establish reduced
outlet concentration

[[Page 16194]]

limits for any daily average flowrates between the flowrate setpoint
and the flowrate limit. The correlation between these elevated
flowrates and the corresponding outlet concentration limits must be
established using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04AP02.006

Where:

C_a = adjusted outlet concentration limit, dry basis, ppmv;
50 = outlet concentration limit associated with the flowrate setpoint,
dry basis, ppmv;
Q_set = system flowrate setpoint, scfm;
Q_lim = actual system flowrate limit, scfm.

(D) You must install and operate a monitoring system for measuring
system flowrate. The flowrate into the control device must be monitored
and recorded at least once every hour. The system flowrate must be
calculated as the average of all values measured during each 24-hour
operating day. The flowrate monitoring sensor must have a minimum
tolerance of 2 percent of the system flowrate setpoint, and the
flowrate monitoring device must be calibrated at least semiannually.
(iii) Flow rate evaluation for noncombustion devices. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirement to correct for
supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.2470(g)(2) for noncombustion
devices, you must evaluate the volumetric flow rate of supplemental
gases, Q_s, and the volumetric flow rate of all gases,
Q_a, each time a new operating scenario is implemented based
on process knowledge and representative operating data. The procedures
used to evaluate the flow rates, and the resulting correction factor
used in Equation 2 of Sec. 63.2470, must be included in the
Notification of Compliance Status and in the next compliance report
submitted after an operating scenario change.

Sec. 63.2510 How may I transfer wastewater to a treatment unit that I
do not own or operate?

(a) You may elect to transfer an affected wastewater stream or a
residual removed from an affected wastewater stream to an on-site
treatment operation that you do not own or operate, or to an off-site
treatment operation, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.132(g),
except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) As an alternative to the management and treatment options
specified in Sec. 63.132(g)(2), any affected wastewater stream (or
residual removed from an affected wastewater stream) that contains less
than 50 ppmw of HAP in Table 2 to subpart GGG of this part may be
transferred offsite if the transferee manages and treats the wastewater
stream or residual in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) The wastewater stream or residual is treated in a biological
treatment unit in accordance with Secs. 63.138 and 63.145.
(ii) The waste management units up to the activated sludge unit are
covered, or you demonstrate that less than 5 percent of the total HAP
in Table 3 to subpart GGG of this part is emitted from the waste
management units up to the activated sludge unit.
(2) References in Sec. 63.132(g) to ``Group 1'' wastewater mean
``affected'' wastewater for the purposes of this subpart.
(3) The references in Sec. 63.132(g)(2) to ``Secs. 63.133 through
63.147'' and in Sec. 63.132(g)(1)(ii) to ``provisions of this subpart''
(i.e., subpart G) refer to the process wastewater provisions in
Secs. 63.2450 through 63.2490, 63.2520, and 63.2525 for the purposes of
this subpart.
(4) The reference in Sec. 63.132(g)(2) to ``Sec. 63.102(b) of
subpart F'' does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(b) You must keep a record of the notice sent to the treatment
operator stating that the wastewater stream or residual contains
organic HAP which are required to be managed and treated in accordance
with the provisions of this subpart.

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), 63.8(f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b)
through (h) that apply to you by the dates specified. For any
performance test required as part of the initial compliance procedures
for batch process vents in Table 11 of this subpart, you must also
submit the test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c) and the emission profile
with the Notification of the Performance Test.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected
source before the effective date of the subpart, you must submit an
Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after the
effective date of the subpart.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after the effective date, you must
submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after
you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 10 through 16 of this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to the schedule in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, and the
Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information
specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) For an existing source in operation on the effective date, you
must submit the Notification of Compliance Status no later than the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445(b). For parts of an area
source that become a major source and an existing affected source, you
must submit the Notification of Compliance Status no later than the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445(d)(2).
(2) If you have a new source, reconstructed source, or parts of a
former area source that are a new source, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status no later than 240 days after the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445(a) or (d)(1).
(3) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP emissions
from the affected source.
(ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments,
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial
compliance according to Tables 10 through 16 of this subpart. For
performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and
analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures.
(iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies,
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels
you establish.
(iv) Listing of all operating scenarios.

[[Page 16195]]

(v) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions
for control devices.
(vi) Identification of emission points subject to overlapping
requirements described in Sec. 63.2535 and the authority under which
you will comply.
(vii) The information specified in Sec. 63.1039(a)(1) through (3)
for each process subject to the work practice standards for equipment
leaks in Table 5 of this subpart.
(viii) If you are complying with the vapor balancing work practice
standard for storage tanks, include a statement to that effect, and a
statement that the pressure vent setting on the storage tank is equal
to or greater than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), as
specified in Table 13 of this subpart.
(f) Notification of Process Change. (1) Except as specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, whenever you make a process change,
or change any of the information submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status, you must submit a report semiannually. For the
purposes of this section, a process change means the startup of a new
process, as defined in Sec. 63.2550. You may submit the notification as
part of the compliance report required under Sec. 63.2520(d). The
notification must include all of the information in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) A brief description of the process change.
(ii) A description of any modifications to standard procedures or
quality assurance procedures.
(iii) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
Notification of Compliance Status under paragraph (e) of this section.
(iv) Information required by the Notification of Compliance Status
under paragraph (e) of this section for changes involving the addition
of processes or equipment.
(2) You must submit a report 60 days before the scheduled
implementation date of either of the changes identified in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Any change in the activity covered by the Precompliance report.
(ii) A change in the status of a control device from small to
large.

Sec. 63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 20 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 20 of this subpart and according to paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.2445 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.2445.
(2) The first Compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.2445.
(3) Each subsequent Compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent Compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent Compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(c) Precompliance report. You must submit a Precompliance report to
request approval of any of the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(5) of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report
within 90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you
must still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work
practice standards in this subpart by the compliance date. To change
any of the information submitted in the report, you must notify us 60
days before the planned change is to be implemented.
(1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters
other than those in Table 8 of this subpart, and for control devices
and treatment units other than those in Table 8 of this subpart.
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec. 63.8(f).
(2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to entry 8. on Table 8 of this subpart are
operating as designed.
(3) A description of the test conditions, data, calculations, and
other information used to establish additional operating limits
according to Sec. 63.2470(e)(3).
(4) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to
calculate uncontrolled emissions from process vents as required in
Table 11 of this subpart.
(5) The pollution prevention demonstration summary required in
Sec. 63.2495(c)(1), if you are complying with the pollution prevention
alternative.
(d) Compliance report. The Compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this
section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the Compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) The Compliance report must contain the information on
deviations according to paragraphs (d)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this
section.
(i) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits and operating limits) that apply to you, and there are
no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in
Table 19 of this subpart, include a statement that there were no
deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards
during the reporting period.
(ii) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission
limits and operating limits) and for each deviation from the
requirements for work practice standards in Table 19 of this subpart
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the emission limitations or work
practice standards in this subpart, you must include the information in
paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if

[[Page 16196]]

applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(C) Operating logs and operating scenarios.
(iii) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission
limits and operating limits) occurring at an affected source where you
are using a CMS to comply with the emission limit in this subpart, you
must include the information in paragraphs (d)(5)(iii)(A) through (N)
of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that each CEMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each hazardous air pollutant that was
monitored at the affected source.
(I) A brief description of the process units.
(J) A brief description of the CMS.
(K) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(M) Operating logs and operating scenarios.
(N) The operating day or operating block average values of
monitored parameters.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS (including CEMS
and CPMS) was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), include a
statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(7) If you invoke the delay of repair provisions in Sec. 63.104(e)
for heat exchange systems, you must include the information in
Sec. 63.104(f)(2)(i) through (iv) in your next compliance report. If
the leak remains unrepaired, you must also submit the information in
each subsequent compliance report until the repair of the leak is
reported.
(8) Include the information in paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (iii)
of this section, as applicable, for storage tanks subject to the
emission limitations and work practice standards in Table 4 of this
subpart.
(i) For each storage tank subject to control requirements, include
periods of planned routine maintenance during which the control device
does not comply with the emission limitation in Table 4 of this
subpart.
(ii) For each storage tank controlled with a floating roof, include
a copy of the inspection record (required in Sec. 63.1065) when
inspection failures occur.
(iii) If you elect to use an extension for a floating roof
inspection in accordance with Sec. 63.1063(c)(2)(iv)(B) or (e)(2),
include the documentation required by Sec. 63.1063 (c)(2)(iv)(B) or
(e)(2).
(9) Include each new operating scenario which has been operated
since the time period covered by the last compliance report. For each
new operating scenario, you must provide verification that the
operating conditions for any associated control or treatment device
have not been exceeded and that any required calculations and
engineering analyses have been performed. For the initial compliance
report, each operating scenario operated since the compliance date must
be submitted.
(10) Include the information specified in Sec. 63.1039(b)(1)
through (8) for processes subject to the work practice standards for
equipment leaks in Table 5 of this subpart.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected
source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 20 of this subpart
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the
Compliance report includes all required information concerning
deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating
limit), or work practice standard in this subpart, submission of the
Compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report
the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However,
submission of a Compliance report shall not otherwise affect any
obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from
permit requirements to the permit authority.

Sec. 63.2525 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (11) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(4) Records specified in Sec. 63.1038(b) and (c) for equipment
subject to the work practice standards for equipment leaks in Table 5
of this subpart.
(5) Daily schedule or log of each operating scenario.
(6) The information specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (ii) for
batch processes in compliance with a percent reduction emission limit
in Table 2 of this subpart and containing process vents controlled to
less the percent reduction requirement.
(i) Records of whether each batch operated was considered a
standard batch.
(ii) The actual uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
(7) The information specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iv)
of this section for each batch process with uncontrolled HAP emissions
less than 10,000 lb/yr.
(i) A record of the number of batches per year.
(ii) A record of whether each batch operated was considered a
standard batch.
(iii) The actual uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
(iv) Records of the daily 365-day rolling summations of emissions.
(8) Records of planned routine maintenance for control devices used
to comply with the percent reduction emission limitations for storage
tanks in Table 4 of this subpart.
(9) The maintenance wastewater plan required in Table 12 of this
subpart.
(10) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid
unsafe

[[Page 16197]]

conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.2450(c).
(11) Records of the results of each CPMS calibration, validation
check, and inspection required by Sec. 63.2475(c)(6) through (8),
(d)(4) and (5), (e)(4) through (7), and (f)(3) and (4).
(b) For each CEMS, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy test for CEMS as
required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required in Tables 17, 18, and 19 of
this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you.

Sec. 63.2530 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

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

(a) Compliance with other subparts of this part. If you have an
MCPU that is a batch process vent that is part of a CMPU as defined in
subparts F and G of this part, you must comply with the emission
limitations; work practice standards; and the compliance, monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for batch process vents in
this subpart FFFF, and you must continue to comply with the
requirements in subparts F, G, and H of this part that are applicable
to the CMPU and associated equipment.
(b) Compliance with 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB, and/
or CC. (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if a
control device that you use to comply with this subpart is also subject
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
264, subpart AA, BB, or CC; or the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC; and you comply
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if your facility had
final-permitted status, you may elect to comply either with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart;
or with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part
264 or 265 and the reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, as
described in this paragraph, which constitute compliance with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart.
If you elect to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, you must report
the information described in Sec. 63.2520, and you must identify in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.2520 the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting authority under which you will
comply.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to 40 CFR
part 264, subpart BB or to 40 CFR part 265, subpart BB, then compliance
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 264
and/or 265 may be used to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of this subpart, to the extent that the requirements of 40
CFR part 264 and/or 265 duplicate the requirements of this subpart. You
must identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520 if you will comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
authority under 40 CFR part 264 and/or 265.
(c) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, you are in compliance with
the provisions of this subpart FFFF for any storage tank that is
assigned to an MCPU and that is both controlled with a floating roof
and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
You are in compliance with this subpart FFFF if you have a storage tank
with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device in compliance
with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, except that you must
comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
in this subpart FFFF. You must also identify in your Notification of
Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.2520 which storage tanks are in
compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
(d) Compliance with subpart I of this part. After the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an affected source with
equipment subject to subpart I of this part, you may elect to comply
with either the provisions of this subpart FFFF or the provisions of
subpart H of this part for all such equipment. You must identify in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.2520 the
provisions with which you will comply.
(e) Compliance with subpart GGG of this part for equipment leaks.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source subject to this subpart and you have an affected source
with equipment subject to Sec. 63.1255, you may elect to comply with
the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such equipment. You must
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520 the provisions with which you will comply.
(f) Compliance with subpart MMM of this part for equipment leaks.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source subject to this subpart and you have an affected source
with equipment subject to Sec. 63.1363, you may elect to comply with
the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such equipment. You must
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520 the provisions with which you will comply.
(g) Compliance with subpart GGG of this part for wastewater. After
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an affected
source subject to this subpart and you have an affected source that
generates wastewater streams subject to Sec. 63.1256, you may elect to
comply with the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such wastewater
streams. You must identify in the Notification of Compliance Status
required by Sec. 63.2520 the provisions with which you will comply.
(h) Compliance with subpart MMM of this part for wastewater. After
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an affected
source subject to this subpart, and you have an affected source that
generates wastewater streams subject to Sec. 63.1362(d), you may elect
to comply with the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such
wastewater streams (except that the 99 percent reduction requirement
for streams subject to Sec. 63.1362(d)(10) still applies). You must
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520 the provisions with which you will comply.

[[Page 16198]]

(i) Compliance with other regulations for wastewater. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an affected
wastewater stream that is also subject to provisions in 40 CFR parts
260 through 272, you may elect to determine whether this subpart or 40
CFR parts 260 through 272 contain the more stringent control
requirements (e.g., design, operation, and inspection requirements for
waste management units; numerical treatment standards; etc.) and the
more stringent testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Compliance with provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through
272 that are determined to be more stringent than the requirements of
this subpart constitute compliance with this subpart. For example,
provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 for treatment units that
meet the conditions specified in Sec. 63.138(h) constitute compliance
with this subpart. In the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520, you must identify the more stringent provisions of 40 CFR
parts 260 through 272 with which you will comply. You must also
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2520 the information and procedures that you used to make any
stringency determinations. If you do not elect to determine the more
stringent requirements, you must comply with both the provisions of 40
CFR parts 260 through 272 and the provisions of this subpart.
(j) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts III, NNN, and RRR.
After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
MCPU that contains equipment subject to the provisions of this subpart
that are also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart III,
NNN, or RRR, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such equipment
in the MCPU. If you elect this method of compliance, you must consider
all total organic compounds, minus methane and ethane, in such
equipment for purposes of applicability and compliance with this
subpart, as if they were organic HAP. Compliance with the provisions of
this subpart, in the manner described in this paragraph, will
constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart III, NNN, or RRR, as
applicable.

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

Table 21 of this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Sec. 63.2545 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the US EPA,
or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency.
If the US EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your US EPA
Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State,
local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of US EPA and are not
delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as follows:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations and work practice standards in Sec. 63.2450(a) under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Sec. 63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?

(a) The following terms used in this subpart and in referenced
subparts are defined in Sec. 63.101: heat exchange system, and
maintenance wastewater.
(b) The following terms used in this subpart and in referenced
subparts are defined in Sec. 63.111: annual average concentration,
annual average flow rate, automated monitoring and recording system,
boiler, car-seal, closed-vent system, combustion device, container,
cover, duct work, enhanced biological treatment system, flow indicator,
halogenated vent stream, hard-piping, individual drain system, junction
box, oil-water separator, point of determination, primary fuel, process
heater, residual, sewer line, surface impoundment, Table 8 compound,
Table 9 compound, total resource effectiveness (TRE) index value,
treatment process, wastewater tank, and water seal controls.
(c) The following terms used in this subpart and in referenced
subparts are defined in Sec. 63.1020: connector, double block and bleed
system, in gas and vapor service, in heavy liquid service, in light
liquid service, in liquid service, in organic HAP service, in vacuum
service, instrumentation system, liquids dripping, nonrepairable, open-
ended valve or line, pressure relief device or valve, repaired, and
screwed (threaded) connector.
(d) The following terms used in this subpart and in referenced
subparts are defined in Sec. 63.1601: external floating roof (EFR),
flexible fabric sleeve seal, floating roof, initial fill or initial
filling, internal floating roof (IFR), liquid-mounted seal, mechanical
shoe seal or metallic shoe, and vapor-mounted seal.
(e) The following terms used in this subpart and in referenced
subparts are defined in Sec. 63.1251: actual HAP emissions, air
pollution control device (or control device), batch emission episode,
batch operation or batch process, block, cleaning operation,
consumption, fixed roof, hydrogen halides and halogens, nondedicated
formulation, process condenser, production-indexed HAP consumption
factor, production-indexed VOC consumption factor, total organic
compounds (TOC), uncontrolled HAP emissions, and unit operation.
(f) All terms used in this subpart that are not listed in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section are defined in the CAA, in
40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section
as follows:
Bulk loading means the loading, into a tank truck or rail car, of
liquid products or isolated intermediates that are materials described
in Sec. 63.2435(b) and that contain one or more of the organic HAP, as
defined in section 112 of the CAA, from a loading rack. A loading rack
is the system used to fill tank trucks and railcars at a single
geographic site.
Closed biological treatment process means a tank or surface
impoundment where biological treatment occurs and air emissions from
the treatment process are routed to a control device by means of a
closed-vent system or by means of hard-piping. The tank or surface
impoundment has a fixed roof, as defined in Sec. 63.1251, or a floating
flexible membrane cover that meets the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.134.
Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or
installation of an affected source or MCPU. Addition of new equipment
to an MCPU subject to existing source standards does not constitute
construction, but it may constitute reconstruction of the affected
source or MCPU if it satisfies the definition of reconstruction in
Sec. 63.2440 (f) or (g).

[[Page 16199]]

Consumption means the quantity of all HAP raw materials entering a
process in excess of the theoretical amount used as reactant, assuming
100 percent stoichiometric conversion. The raw materials include
reactants, solvents, and any other additives. If a HAP is generated in
the process as well as added as a raw material, consumption includes
the quantity generated in the process.
Dedicated MCPU means an MCPU that is composed of equipment that is
used to manufacture the same product for a continuous period of 6
months or greater. The MCPU includes any shared storage tanks that are
determined to belong to the MCPU according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.2440(c).
Dense gas system means a conveyance system operated to limit oxygen
levels below 12 percent.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Family of materials means grouping of materials with the same basic
composition produced using the same basic feedstocks, but that may
vary, for example, by molecular weight, functional group, or
manufacturing equipment configuration. Examples of families of
materials include, but are not limited to, alkyd resins, polyester
resins, and synthetic fatty acids.
Isolated intermediate is obtained as the product of a process. An
isolated intermediate is usually a product of a chemical synthesis,
fermentation, or biological extraction process; several different
isolated intermediates may be produced in the manufacture of a product.
An isolated intermediate is stored before subsequent processing.
Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is placed in equipment used
solely for storage, such as drums, totes, day tanks, and storage tanks.
The storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a process.
Large control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tons/yr, before control.
Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining
of process fluid from components in the MCPU into an individual drain
system in preparation for or during maintenance activities. Maintenance
wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and
during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities
that can generate maintenance wastewater include descaling of heat
exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps,
draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of
portions of the MCPU for repair. Wastewater from cleaning operations is
not considered maintenance wastewater.
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process means all
equipment which collectively function to produce a product or isolated
intermediate that are materials described in Sec. 63.2435(b). A process
may consist of one or more unit operations. For the purposes of this
subpart, process includes any, all or a combination of reaction,
recovery, separation, purification, or other activity, operation,
manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a product or
isolated intermediate. Cleaning operations conducted are considered
part of the process. Nondedicated solvent recovery operations located
within a contiguous area within the affected source are considered
single processes. A storage tank that is used to accumulate used
solvent from multiple batches of a single process for purposes of
solvent recovery does not represent the end of the process.
Nondedicated formulation operations (not including mixing, as defined
in this section) occurring within a contiguous area are considered a
single process that is used to formulate numerous materials and/or
products. Quality assurance and quality control laboratories are not
considered part of any process. Ancillary activities are not considered
a process or part of any process. Ancillary activities include boilers
and incinerators (not used to comply with the emission limitations in
Tables 1 through 4 of this subpart), chillers and refrigeration
systems, and other equipment and activities that are not directly
involved (i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials are
not combined with process fluids) in the processing of raw materials or
the manufacturing of a product or isolated intermediate.
Mixing means an operation in which a material is combined with one
or more materials at ambient temperature without a chemical reaction.
Nondedicated solvent recovery means a recovery device that receives
material from more than one MCPU.
On-site or on site means, with respect to records required to be
maintained by this subpart or required by another subpart referenced by
this subpart, that records are stored at a location within a major
source which encompasses the affected source. On-site includes, but is
not limited to, storage at the affected source or MCPU to which the
records pertain, or storage in central files elsewhere at the major
source.
Open biological treatment process means a biological treatment
process that is not a closed biological treatment process as defined in
this section.
Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and
recordkeeping, any specific operation of an MCPU and includes for each
process:
(1) A description of the process and the type of process equipment
used;
(2) An identification of related process vents and their associated
emissions episodes and durations, wastewater point of determination
(POD), and storage tanks;
(3) The applicable control requirements of this subpart, including
the level of required control, and for vents, the level of control for
each vent;
(4) The control or treatment devices used, as applicable, including
a description of operating and/or testing conditions for any associated
control device;
(5) The process vents, wastewater POD, and storage tanks (including
those from other processes) that are simultaneously routed to the
control or treatment device(s);
(6) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and any
parametric level that assures compliance for all emissions routed to
the control or treatment device;
(7) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate
compliance; and
(8) For reporting purposes, a change to any of these elements not
previously reported, except for paragraph (5) of this definition,
constitutes a new operating scenario.
Predominant HAP means as used in calibrating an analyzer, the
single organic HAP that constitutes the largest percentage of the total
HAP in the analyzed gas stream, by volume.

[[Page 16200]]

Process vent means a vent from a unit operation or vents from
multiple unit operations within a process that are manifolded together
into a common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or
has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of
process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used
for product recovery, bottom receivers, surge control vessels,
reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks. Emission streams
that are undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP,
as determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the
emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Methods 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according
to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not
considered process vents. Process vents do not include vents on storage
tanks, wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to
the emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 3
through 5 of this subpart.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment used for the
purpose of recovering chemicals from process vent streams for reuse in
a process at the affected source and from wastewater streams for fuel
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for
fuel value, use or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a
recovery device for a wastewater stream, a decanter and any other
equipment based on the operating principle of gravity separation must
receive only two-phase liquid streams.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a continuous process
for any purpose. Shutdown also means the cessation of a batch process
or any related individual piece of equipment required or used to comply
with this subpart as a result of a malfunction or for replacement of
equipment, repair, or any other purpose not excluded from this
definition. Shutdown also applies to emptying and degassing storage
vessels. Shutdown does not apply to cessation of a batch process at the
end of a campaign, for routine maintenance, for rinsing or washing of
equipment between batches, or other routine operations.
Small control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of less than 10 tons/yr, before control.
Standard batch means a batch process operated within a range of
operating conditions that are documented in an operating scenario.
Emissions from a standard batch are based on the operating conditions
that result in highest emissions. The standard batch defines the
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each emission episode defined
under the operating scenario.
Startup means the setting in operation of a continuous process unit
for any purpose the first time a new or reconstructed batch process
unit begins production; or, for new equipment added, including
equipment used to comply with this subpart, the first time the
equipment is put into operation; or for the introduction of a new
product/process, the first time the product or process is run in
equipment. For batch process units, startup does not apply to the first
time the equipment is put into operation at the start of a campaign to
produce a product that has been produced in the past, after a shutdown
for maintenance, or when the equipment is put into operation as part of
a batch within a campaign. For equipment subject to the work practice
standards in Table 5 of this subpart, startup means the setting in
operation of a piece of equipment or a control device that is subject
to this subpart.
Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids that contain one or more HAP as raw material
feedstocks. Storage tank also means a tank or other vessel in a tank
farm that receives and accumulates used solvent from multiple batches
of a process or processes for purposes of solvent recovery. The
following are not considered storage tanks for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only as
impurities;
(4) Wastewater storage tanks; and
(5) Process tanks (including product tanks and isolated
intermediate tanks).
Supplemental gases are any gaseous streams that are not defined as
process ents, or closed-vent systems from wastewater management and
treatment units, storage tanks, or equipment components and that
contain less than 50 ppmv TOC, as determined through process knowledge,
that are introduced into vent streams or manifolds. Air required to
operate combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental gas.
System flowrate means the flowrate of gas entering the control
device.
Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream, with the
concentrations expressed on a carbon basis.
Waste management unit means the equipment, structure(s), and/or
device(s) used to convey, store, treat, or dispose of wastewater
streams or residuals. Examples of waste management units include
wastewater tanks, air flotation units, surface impoundments,
containers, oil-water or organic-water separators, individual drain
systems, biological wastewater treatment units, waste incinerators, and
organic removal devices such as steam and air stripper units, and thin
film evaporation units. If such equipment is used for recovery, then it
is part of a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process and
is not a waste management unit.
Wastewater stream means water that is discarded from an MCPU
through a single POD and that contains either: an annual average
concentration of Table 9 compounds (as defined in Sec. 63.111) of at
least 5 ppmw and has an annual average flow rate of 0.02 liters per
minute or greater, or an annual average concentration of Table 9
compounds (as defined in Sec. 63.111) of at least 10,000 ppmw at any
flow rate. For the purposes of this subpart, noncontact cooling water
is not considered a wastewater stream.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

As required in Secs. 63.2450(a)(1) and (f), 63.2460(a)(2), and
63.2500(b)(1), you must meet each emission limitation and work practice
standard in the following table that applies to your continuous process
vents:

[[Page 16201]]

Table 1 to Subpart FFFF.--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Continuous Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * And you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each continuous process Use a control device Route the vent
vent with a TRE: £ to reduce HAP stream to the
2.6 at an existing emissions by ³ control device
source; or £5.0 98 percent through a closed-
at a new or reconstructed by weight; or use a vent system; and
source. control device to comply with the
reduce emissions to work practice
an outlet total standards for
organic HAP or TOC closed-vent systems
concentraiton £ specified in Table
20 ppmv and 5 of this subpart;
an outlet hydrogen and comply with the
halide and halogen emission
concentration £ limitations in
ppmv, both Table 7 of this
corrected for subpart, if you use
supplemental gases a combustion device
as specified in to control
Sec. 63.2470(g); halogenated vent
or reduce HAP streams. Determine
emissions using a whether a vent
flare that meets stream is
the performance halogenated
requirements according to Sec.
specified in Sec. 63.2460(b).
63.11(b), but you
may not use a flare
for halogenated
vent streams; or
reduce HPA
emissions using a
control device
specified in Sec.
63.2455(f); or
achieve and
maintain a TRE
index value >2.6
for existing
sources and 5.0 for
new sources at the
outlet of the final
recovery device, or
prior to release of
the vent streasm to
the atmosphere if
no recovery device
is present.
2. Each continuous process Maintain the TRE Non applicable.
vent with a TRE >2.6 but >2.6 at the outlet
£5.0 at an of the final
existing source. recovery device, or
prior to release of
the vent stream to
the atmosphere if
no recovery device
is present.
3. Each continuous process Maintain the TRE Non applicable
vent with a TRE >5.0 but >5.0 at the outlet
£8.0 at a new or of the final
reconstructed source. recovery device, or
prior to release of
the vent stream to
the atmosphere if
no recovery device
is present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Secs. 63.2450(a)(2) and (f), 63.2495(b),
63.2500(b)(1), and 63.2505(a)(4), you must meet each emission
limitation and work practice standard in the following table that
applies to your batch process vents:

Table 2 to Subpart FFFF.--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Batch Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * And you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The sum of all batch Maintain annual Non applicable.
process vents within a emissions below the
process if the total applicable mass
uncontrolled HAP emission limits.
are 10,000 lb/yr at an
existing source; or 3,000
lb/yr at a new or
reconstruced source.
2. The sum of all batch Reduce HAP emissions For each vent stream
process vents within a from the sum of all that you control,
process with uncontrolled batch process vents route the vent
total HAP emissions ³ within the process stream through a
10,000 lb/yr at an by ³98 closed-vent system
existing source; or ³ percent by weight; to the control
3,000 lb/yr at a new or or reduce HAP device; and comply
reconstructed source. emissions from the with the work
sum of all batch practice standards
process vents for closed-vent
within the process systems specified
by ³95 in Table 5 of this
percent by weight subpart; and comply
using recovery with the emission
devices; or control limitations in
emissions from any Table 7 of this
batch vents within subpart, if you use
the process in a combustion device
accordance with any to control
combination of the halogenated vent
following, and streams. Determine
reduce HAP whether a vent
emissions from the stream is
sum of all the halogenated
remaining batch according to Sec.
vents within the 63.2460(b).
process by ³
98 percent by
weight: reduce HAP
emissions using a
flare that meets
the performance
requiremetns
specified in Sec.
63.11(b), but you
may not use a flare
for halogenated
vent streams; or
reduce emissions to
an outlet total
organic HAP or TOC
concentration £
20 ppmv and
an outlet hydrogen
halide and halogen
concentration £
20 ppmv,
both corrected for
supplemental gases
as specified in
Sec. 63.2470(g);
or reduce HAP
emissions using a
control device
specified in Sec.
63.2455(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Secs. 63.2450(a)(3) and (f), 63.2460(c), 63.2495(b),
and 63.2500(b)(1), you must meet each emission limitation and work
practice standard in the following table that applies to your
wastewater streams, waste management units, and liquid streams in open
systems within an MCPU:

[[Page 16202]]

Table 3 to Subpart FFFF.--Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards for Wastewater Streams, Waste Management Units, and Liquid
Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
following
For each * * * You must * * * additional options
and exceptions * *
--------------------------------------------------------------*---------
1. Waste management unit Suppress HAP For any halogenated
(i.e., wastewater tank, emissions by streams that are
surface impoundment complying with the controlled with a
container, individual drain requirements combustion device,
system, and oil-water specified in Secs. also comply with
separator) used to convey, 63.132(a)(2)(i) and the emission
store, treat, or dispose of 63.133 through limitations in
an affected wastewater 63.137; and route Table 7 of this
stream or residual. vent streams from subpart. Determine
the waste whether a vent
management units stream is
through a closed- halogenated
vent system to any according to Sec.
of the following: A 63.2460(b); and you
flare that meets must correct outlet
the performance concentrations to
requirements of account for
Sec. 63.11(b), supplemental gases
except that you may using the
not vent a procedures
halogenated vent specified in Sec.
stream to a flare, 63.2470(g); and you
or a control device may not comply with
that reduces HAP the outlet
emissions by ³ concentration
95 percent standard for
by weight; or a surface
control device that impoundments and
reduces emissions containers.
to an outlet total
organic HAP or TOC
concentration ³
20 ppmv; or
a combustion device
with a minimum
residence time of
0.5 seconds at a
minimum temperature
of 760 deg.C; or a
control device
specified in Sec.
63.2455(f); and
comply with the
work practice
standards for
closed-vent systems
specified in Table
5 of this subpart.
2. Affected wastewater Treat the wastewater The treatment
stream at an existing to remove or options may be used
source. destroy HAP in combination for
compounds listed in different
Table 9 of subpart wastewater streams
G using one of the and/or for
options specified different compounds
in Sec. in the same
63.138(b)(1), (d), wastewater streams,
(e), (f), (g), (h), except where
or (i). otherwise provided
in Sec. 63.138;
you may use a
series of treatment
processes in
accordance with the
provisions in Sec.
63.138(a)(7); and
you need not cover
and vent an open
biological
treatment process
to a control
device.
3. Affected wastewater Treat the wastewater The treatment
stream at a new or to remove or options may be used
reconstructed source. destroy HAP in combination for
compounds listed in different
Table 9 of subpart wastewater streams
G using one of the and/or for
options specified different compounds
in Sec. in the same
63.138(b)(1), (d), wastewater streams,
(e), (f), (g), (h), except where
or (i); and treat otherwise provided
the wastewater to in Sec. 63.138;
remove or destroy and you may use a
HAP compounds series of treatment
listed in Table 8 processes in
of subpart G using accordance with the
one of the options provisions in Sec.
specified in Sec. 63.138(a)(7); and
63.138(c)(1), (d), you need not cover
(e), (f), (g), (h), and vent an open
or (i). biological
treatment process
to a control
device.
4. Residual removed from an Control HAP Non applicable.
affected wastewater stream. emissions by
complying with the
requirements in
entry 1. of this
table and in Sec.
63.138(k).
5. Maintenance wastewater Develop and Non applicable.
containing HAP listed in implement a
Table 9 of subpart G of maintenance
this part. wastewater plan
according to Sec.
63.105.
6. Liquid stream in an open Comply with the Non applicable.
system within an MCPU. requirements in
Sec. 63.149,
except: references
in Sec. 63.149 to
a ``chemical
manufacturing
process unit''
means an ``MCPU as
defined in Sec.
63.2435(b)'' for
the purposes of
this subpart; and
references to Sec.
63.100(f) and
references to
subparts F, G, and
H of this part do
not apply for the
purposes of this
subpart; and when
Sec. 63.149 refers
to the definition
of new sources in
40 CFR 63.100(l)(1)
or (2), the
definitions for new
and reconstructed
sources in Sec.
63.2440 apply for
the purposes of
this subpart; and
references in Sec.
63.149 to fuel gas
systems do not
apply for the
purposes of this
subpart; and when
Table 35 of subpart
G refers to Sec.
63.139(c),
references to entry
d. in this table
apply for the
purposes of this
subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Secs. 63.2450(a)(4), (f), and (i), 63.2495(b), and
63.2500(b)(1) and (c)(1)(vi), you must meet each emission limitation
and work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
storage tanks:

[[Continued on page 16203]]

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

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

Related Material

Local Navigation