DIALOG Accession Number 00456644
Title National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Seven Other Processes
Vol. 57,No. 252
Part II
57 FR 62608
Thursday, December 31, 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 63
AD-FRL-4535-5
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 31, 1993.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA to speak at a public hearing by January
21, 1993, a public hearing will be held on February 25, 1993 beginning at 10 a.m.
Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Julia Stevens at the
address below by January 21, 1993.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 21, 1993 (contact Ms. Julia Stevens at 919 541-5578).
CONTACT: For general information on the proposed rule and information on the
equipment leak standard, contact Dr. Janet S. Meyer, Standards Development
Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5254. For information on
emissions averaging, contact Ms. Daphne L. McMurrer, Standards Development
Branch, at the same address, telephone number (919) 541-0248. For technical
information on wastewater handling operations, contact Mr. K. C. Hustvedt, Chief,
Petroleum Section, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, at the same address, telephone
number (919) 541-5395. For technical information on the other kinds of emission
points, contact Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel, Chief, Chemical Manufacturing Section,
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, at the same address, telephone number (919) 541-
5608.
ADDRESS: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to the
EPA's Air Docket (LE-131), Attn: Docket Number (see list following address), room
M1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. Comments that address areas pertinent to the proposed rule as a whole or
that are applicable to more than one kind of emission point, such as general
policy or legal comments, comments on the overall impacts of the standards, and
comments on test methods should be marked Attn: Docket Number A-90-19. Technical
comments specific to process vents should be marked Attn: Docket Number A-90-19;
technical comments about equipment leaks and any other comments about the
negotiated regulation for equipment leaks should be marked Attn: Docket Number A-
90-20; technical comments about storage vessels should be marked Attn: Docket
Number A-90-21; technical comments about transfer operations should be marked
Attn: Docket Number A-90-22; and comments specific to wastewater operations
should be marked Attn: Docket Number A-90-23.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to present oral testimony on
the rule being proposed today, a public hearing will be held at the EPA's Office
of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons
interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Ms. Julia Stevens, Standards Development Branch, Emission Standards
Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (MD- 13), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 5410
Background Information Document. The background information document (BID) for
this rulemaking may be obtained from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Refer to
EPA-453/D- 92-016a, b, and c. The HON BID comprises three volumes. Persons
requesting copies of the BID should specify the volume(s) required. For
information on the methodology and results of the analysis of national impacts,
request BID Volume 1A. For information on emission control technologies and cost
procedures, request BID Volume 1B. For information on the development of models
for the five kinds of emission points, request BID Volume 1C.
Dockets. The dockets listed above under ADDRESSES contain supporting
information used in developing the proposed rule. Supporting information used in
developing the negotiated standard for equipment leaks is available in Docket
Number A-89-10. These dockets are available for public inspection and copying
between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air Docket
Section, Waterside Mall, room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to regulate the emissions of certain organic
hazardous air pollutants from synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
(SOCMI) production processes which are part of major sources under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). The proposed rule, referred to as
the hazardous organic NESHAP or the HON, would require sources to achieve
emission limits reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology consistent with section 112(d) of the Act. The proposed rule would
reduce the emissions of 149 of the organic chemicals identified in the Act's list
of 189 hazardous air pollutants at both new and existing SOCMI sources and from
equipment leaks at sources in the following processes: Styrene/butadiene rubber
production; polybutadiene production; chlorine production; pesticide production;
chlorinated hydrocarbon use; pharmaceutical production; and miscellaneous
butadiene use. The EPA is also proposing Methods 304 and 305 with the standard.
These methods can be used to demonstrate compliance with control requirements for
wastewater streams.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested persons with
an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposed rule.
265,475
TEXT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to aid in reading the
preamble to the proposed standards.
I. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
A. Definitions
B. Acronyms
C. Abbreviations
II. Policy Approach
A. Background
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
C. Legal Framework
D. Policy Goals
E. Major Policy Decisions
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Summary of Subpart F
B. Summary of Subpart G
C. Summary of Subpart H
IV. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Rule
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost Impacts
D. Economic Impacts
V. Emissions and Impacts Estimation Methodology
A. Overview
B. Control Technologies for Impacts Estimation
C. National Emissions and Control Cost Calculations
VI. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart F
A. Selection of Source Categories
B. Selection of Emission Points
VII. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart G
A. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
B. Selection of Process Vents Provisions
C. Selection of Storage Vessel Provisions
D. Selection of Transfer Loading Operations Provisions
E. Selection of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operations Provisions
F. Selection of Emissions Averaging Provisions
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
H. Selection of Compliance Provisions
VIII. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart H
A. Background
B. Scope and Applicability
C. Background Information on Equipment Leaks
D. Development of Framework and Selection of Maximum Achievable Control Technology
E. Selection of Format of Standards
F. Selection of Emission Limits and Work Practice Requirements
G. Test Methods and Procedures
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Coordination with Other Clean Air Act Requirements
B. Executive Order 12291
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Review
I. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
The following lists of definitions, acronyms, and units of measure are provided
to aid in reading the preamble to the proposed rule. Additional definitions are
provided near the beginning of the proposed subparts F, G, and H.
A. Definitions
The following definitions were developed for use in preparing and describing
the proposed rule.
Control device means any equipment used for recovering or oxidizing organic
hazardous air pollutant vapors. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to,
absorbers, carbon absorbers, condensers, incinerators, flares, boilers, and process
heaters. For process vents, recovery devices are not considered control devices.
Discount factor is a specified percentage used to reduce the value of emission
credits. A discount factor of 20 percent reduces 10 Mg of potential emission
credits to 8 Mg of actual emission credits that could be used to balance an
emissions debit. For regulatory purposes, a 20 percent discount factor is
represented as 0.8 in credit estimation equations.
Emissions averaging is a means of complying with subpart G of this proposed
rule. Emissions averaging allows a source to create emission credits by reducing
emissions from specific points to a level below that required by subpart G. Those
credits are used to offset emission debits from points that are not controlled to
the level required by subpart G.
Emission credits are excess emission reductions above those required by subpart
G that are used to offset emission debits in emissions averaging.
Emission debits are increased emissions that result when a source elects not to
control a Group 1 emission point to the level required by subpart G.
Emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel, transfer rack,
wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Group 1 emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel,
transfer rack, or wastewater stream that satisfies the applicability criteria for
the control requirements of subpart G.
Group 2 emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel,
transfer rack, or wastewater stream that does not satisfy the applicability
criteria for the control requirements of subpart G.
Halogenated vent stream or halogenated stream means a vent stream from a
process vent or transfer operation determined to have a total concentration of
halogen atoms (by volume) contained in organic compounds of 200 parts per million
by volume or greater.
Hazardous Air Pollutant or HAP means any air pollutant listed under section
112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common
ownership or control, including properties that are separated only by a road or
other public right-of-way. Common ownership or control includes properties that are
owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any
combination thereof.
Reference control technology means a device or devices that can be used to
comply with the control requirements in subpart G. Subpart G specifies the
reference control technologies for each kind of emission point and establishes a
control efficiency that the devices should achieve when being used to comply with
this rule.
Very volatile hazardous air pollutant or very volatile HAP means one of the
chemicals listed in Table 8 of subpart G.
Volatile organics or VO refers to the portion of organic compounds (including
both hazardous air pollutant and non-hazardous air pollutant organic compounds) in
a wastewater stream that is measured by Method 25D, as found in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant or VOHAP means the volatile portion of
an individually- speciated organic hazardous air pollutant in a wastewater stream
or a residual that is measured by proposed Method 305.
Waste management unit means any component, piece of equipment, structure, or
transport mechanism used in conveying, storing, treating, or disposing of any
waste, including a wastewater stream or a residual. Wastewater tanks are an example
of a waste management unit.
Wastewater means organic hazardous air pollutant-containing water or process
fluid discharged into an individual drain system and includes process wastewater,
maintenance-turnaround wastewater, and maintenance wastewater. Organic hazardous
air pollutant- containing water or process fluids contain at least 5 parts per
million by weight total organic hazardous air pollutant and have a flow rate of
0.02 liter per minute, or greater, or a concentration of at least 10,000 parts per
million by weight and any flow rate.
B. Acronyms
B. Acronyms
Acronyms BD
Term butadiene.
Acronyms BID
Term background information document.
Acronyms CFR
Term Code of Federal Regulations.
Acronyms CMA
Term Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Acronyms CO
Term carbon monoxide.
Acronyms CTG
Term control techniques guideline.
Acronyms CWA
Term Clean Water Act.
Acronyms DMS
Term dual mechanical seal.
cronyms DOT
Term Department of Transportation.
Acronyms EB/S
Term ethylbenzene/styrene.
Acronyms EO
Term ethylene oxide.
Acronyms E.O.
Term Executive Order.
Acronyms EPA
Term Environmental Protection Agency.
Acronyms FR
Term Federal Register .
Acronyms HAP
Term hazardous air pollutant.
Acronyms HON
Term hazardous organic national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants.
Acronyms LDAR
Term leak detection and repair.
Acronyms MACT
Term maximum achievable control technology.
Acronyms NESHAP
Term national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants.
Acronyms NO sub x
Term nitrogen oxides.
Acronyms NSPS
Term new source performance standards.
Acronyms OMB
Term Office of Management and Budget.
Acronyms OSHA
Term Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Acronyms P.L.
Term Public Law.
Acronyms QIP
Term quality improvement program.
Acronyms RCRA
Term Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Acronyms RIA
Term Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Acronyms SIP
Term State Implementation Plan.
Acronyms SMS
Term single mechanical seal.
Acronyms SOCMI
Term synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Acronyms TOC
Term total organic compound.
Acronyms TRE
Term total resource effectiveness.
Acronyms TACB
Term Texas Air Control Board.
Acronyms TSDF
Term treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
Acronyms VHAP
Term volatile hazardous air pollutant.
Acronyms VO
Term volatile organics measurable by Method 25D.
Acronyms VOC
Term volatile organic compound.
Acronyms VOHAP
Term volatile organic hazardous air pollutant.
C. Abbreviations
C. Abbreviations
Abbreviation bbl
Unit of measure barrel.
Abbreviation BOE
Unit of measure barrels of oil equivalent.
Abbreviation Btu
Unit of measure British thermal unit.
Abbreviation Btu/kW-hr
Unit of measure British thermal unit per kilowatt-hour.
Abbreviation degrees C
Unit of measure degrees Celsius.
Abbreviation degrees F
Unit of measure degrees Fahrenheit.
Abbreviation gal
Unit of measure gallon.
Abbreviation hr
Unit of measure hour.
Abbreviation kPa
Unit of measure kilopascals.
Abbreviation kW-hr/yr
Unit of measure kilowatt-hour per year.
Abbreviation l pm
Unit of measure liters per minute.
Abbreviation gal
Unit of measure gallons.
Abbreviation m sup 3
Unit of measure cubic meters.
Abbreviation Mg
Unit of measure megagrams.
Abbreviation mg
Unit of measure milligrams.
Abbreviation mg/dscm
Unit of measure milligram per dry standard cubic meter.
Abbreviation MW
Unit of measure megawatts.
Abbreviation ppb
Unit of measure parts per billion.
Abbreviation ppm
Unit of measure parts per million.
Abbreviation ppmv
Unit of measure parts per million by volume.
Abbreviation ppmw
Unit of measure parts per million by weight.
Abbreviation psia
Unit of measure pounds per square inch absolute.
Abbreviation scm/min
Unit of measure standard cubic meter per minute.
Abbreviation TJ
Unit of measure terajoules.
Abbreviation yr
Unit of measure year.
II. Policy Approach
This section provides background about the legal and policy criteria that the
Administrator took into consideration in selecting the provisions of this proposed
rule. It is included to give the reader a sense of the rule as a whole. To that
end, the section includes background about the rule, a brief overview of the rule,
some statutory history, a summary of the current statutory requirements for
standards developed under Section 112 of the Act, and a discussion of the Agency's
policy goals. This section concludes with a short discussion of the major policy
decisions that the Administrator made to structure this proposed rule in such a way
that it meets the statutory criteria and the Agency's policy goals.
A. Background
The regulation being proposed today, under Section 112 of the Act, is known as
the hazardous organic NESHAP, or HON. The HON, as proposed, would set MACT for one
source category and seven processes in other source categories. The entire SOCMI
source category and equipment leaks from seven non- SOCMI processes are to be
regulated.
The Act, as amended in 1990, requires that EPA promulgate standards for 40
source categories or subcategories emitting HAP's within 2 years of its enactment.
In the Statement of the Managers accompanying the final bill, as enacted, Congress
indicated that EPA should fulfill this initial statutory requirement by regulating
the priority elements of the HON as it was under development during consideration
of the bill. 136 Cong. Rec. H13198 (October 26, 1990). This proposed rule would
cover the HON, as Congress described it, and more. As such, this rulemaking, while
regulating less than 40 source categories, will fulfill Congressional intent
concerning what should have been regulated within 2 years of enactment.
The SOCMI, as a source category, emits a large volume and variety of HAP's
relative to other source categories. In addition, individual SOCMI sources tend to
be located in close proximity to populations. As such, components of SOCMI sources
have already been subject to various Federal, State, and local air pollution
control rules. However, the existing rules, even when considered together, do not
comprehensively regulate emissions of all the organic HAP's emitted from all the
emission points at both new and existing sources.
The HON, as proposed today, reflects the EPA's regulatory experience from
previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings involving similar kinds of sources and
emission points. Information on control technology applicability, performance, and
costs was developed to support these NESHAP and NSPS. This information was
carefully reconsidered in light of the 1990 amendments to the Act and used in the
selection of MACT and the other provisions of the proposed rule, such as
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
The EPA has promulgated NSPS for SOCMI air oxidation and distillation process
vents, SOCMI equipment leaks, petroleum refinery equipment leaks, and VOC emissions
from volatile organic liquid storage vessels. The EPA has also promulgated NESHAP
for benzene transfer operations, storage vessels, and waste operations, and benzene
equipment leaks. The vinyl chloride NESHAP establishes standards for emission
points at vinyl chloride and ethylene dichloride production processes.
Although these existing rules will remain in effect, the HON would provide
comprehensive coverage of the SOCMI by regulating the organic HAP emissions from
five kinds of emission points at each affected SOCMI source.
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
This section of the notice provides an overview of the proposed rule. A more
detailed summary of the proposed rule is provided in section III and the rationale
for the provisions in the proposed rule is provided in sections VI through VIII.
The proposed rule comprises three subparts to be included in 40 CFR part 63.
Subpart F provides the applicability criteria and general compliance requirements
for the rule. Subparts G and H provide the control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for the five kinds of emission points.
1. Subpart F: Applicability of the HON
The HON would regulate certain components of new and existing major sources, as
defined by section 112(a) of the Act, for the SOCMI and seven non-SOCMI processes.
To define the SOCMI source category, subpart F includes a list of organic HAP's
and a list of 396 synthetic organic chemicals produced by the SOCMI as commercial
products. The ''chemical manufacturing processes'' used to produce these 396
chemicals can, but do not always, result in organic HAP emissions depending on
whether HAP's are used or produced. Only those processes that use as a reactant or
produce as a product, by- product, or co-product one or more organic HAP's would be
subject to the proposed rule.
As proposed, subpart F defines ''source'' for the SOCMI source category as the
set of process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater streams, and
equipment leaks in the organic HAP-emitting chemical manufacturing processes that
are subject to the HON. To be subject to the HON, a chemical manufacturing process
must be used to produce one or more of the 396 SOCMI chemicals listed in subpart F,
and have an organic HAP as either:
(1) A product, by-product, co-product, or intermediate; or
(2) A reactant.
To be part of the same source, chemical manufacturing processes that are
subject to the HON must also be located within a contiguous plant site under common
control.{pg 62611}
Subpart G would apply to the following kinds of emission points in SOCMI
chemical manufacturing processes: process vents, wastewater operations, storage
vessels, and transfer operations.
Subpart H would apply to the equipment leaks in SOCMI and seven non-SOCMI
chemical manufacturing processes. The following non-SOCMI equipment leak processes
are subject to subpart H: Styrene/butadiene rubber production; polybutadiene
production; chlorine production; pesticide production; chlorinated hydrocarbon use;
pharmaceutical production; and miscellaneous butadiene use.
2. Subpart G: Provisions for Process Vents, Wastewater, Storage Vessels and
Transfer Operations
Subpart G of the proposed rule would require the owner or operator of a source
to limit source-wide emissions of HAP's. Subpart G provides specific instructions
for determining how much emission reduction must be achieved at each source. The
required emission reduction is determined by how much emissions would be reduced if
a ''reference control technology'' were applied to each ''Group 1'' emission point
in the source.
The proposed rule specifies the reference control technology for each kind of
point. Group 1 points are those points that meet the applicability criteria
included in the control requirements for the proposed rule. The reference control
technologies and the characteristics of Group 1 points are specified in subpart G
of the proposed rule.
The owner or operator of a source can use two methods to comply with the
emission reduction requirement. Either method can be used exclusively, or the two
can be combined.
The first method is to apply the reference control technology, or an equivalent
technology, to Group 1 emission points; thereby achieving some part of the required
emission reduction at each Group 1 point that is controlled.
The second method is to average emissions from two or more emission points such
that the overall required emission reduction is achieved. With the second method,
emissions averaging, the owner or operator does not have to apply the reference
control technology to each Group 1 point as long as an equivalent or greater
emissions reduction is achieved elsewhere in the source.
Although equipment leaks are included in the definition of source for the SOCMI
source category, equipment leaks cannot be included in the emissions averages
because: (1) The equipment leaks standard has no fixed performance level; and (2)
no method currently exists for determining the magnitude of allowable emissions to
assign equipment leaks for purposes of emissions averaging. When this methodology
is developed, EPA will consider allowing equipment leak emissions to be included in
emissions averages.
3. Subpart H: Provisions for Equipment Leaks
The provisions in subpart H of the proposed rule were developed using
regulatory negotiation and represent an extension of existing equipment leak
control procedures and techniques to the processes regulated by today's proposal.
Subpart H proposes work practice requirements to reduce emissions from
equipment leaks for equipment in volatile HAP service for 300 or more hours per
year. To be in volatile HAP service is to be in contact with or containing process
fluid that contains total 5 percent or more total HAP.
The following types of equipment are subject to Subpart H: valves, pumps,
connectors, compressors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, sampling
connection systems, instrumentation systems, agitators, product accumulator
vessels, and closed-vent systems and control devices.
C. Legal Framework
This section provides a brief history of section 112 of the Act and background
regarding the definition of source categories and source for section 112 standards.
This information is included to give the reader a sense of the statutory, judicial,
and Congressional guidance that the Administrator took into consideration in
developing the source category and source definitions for the HON.
1. Statutory Background
Prior to the 1990 Amendments, section 112 of the Act required the Administrator
to list air pollutants for which he intended to establish NESHAP. Then, within 180
days of such listing, the Administrator was required to propose regulations for
each listed pollutant. He was also required to issue final regulations within
another 180 days. Thus, once the Administrator added a pollutant to the section 112
list, a final NESHAP for that pollutant had to be issued within 1 year. The statute
itself did not contain a list of pollutants.
Section 112 also provided that the Administrator must establish NESHAP at the
level which ''in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air pollutant.'' Section 112(b)(1)(B). As a
result of this language, EPA conducted risk assessments to determine which
pollutants should be regulated and to what level. Because of the substantial length
of time required to complete a risk assessment study, EPA generally did not list an
air pollutant until the proposed regulations were well underway.
In 1987, the legal framework for setting NESHAP was further defined when the
D.C. Circuit handed down an en banc decision in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., versus EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987), (hereafter referred to as Vinyl
Chloride). In that decision, the court set out a two-step process for EPA to follow
in setting standards: (1) Determine a ''safe'' or ''acceptable'' risk level, and
(2) set the standard at the level- which may be lower but not higher than the
''safe'' or ''acceptable'' level-that protects public health with an ample margin
of safety. Following the 1987 Vinyl Chloride decision, the EPA promulgated NESHAP
for several source categories of benzene and radionuclide emissions using the two-
step process mandated by the court. A ''safe'' level was determined in each
instance through risk assessment, then a standard providing protection with an
''ample margin of safety'' was set after consideration of factors such as cost and
feasibility.
2. Current Statutory Requirements
The 1990 Amendments altered the preexisting scheme of section 112
fundamentally. Instead of requiring the EPA to determine which air pollutants
should be listed and regulated as HAP's, Congress provided a list of 189 HAP's in
the statute itself and directed EPA to develop rules to control HAP emissions. The
Act requires that the rules be established for categories of sources of the
emissions, rather than being set by pollutant. In addition, the Act sets out
specific criteria for establishing a minimum level of control, and criteria to be
considered in evaluating control options more stringent than the minimum control
level. For most of these rules, assessment and control of any remaining
unacceptable health risk is to occur 8 years after they are promulgated. However,
for the rules required to be promulgated in the first 2 years after enactment, EPA
is not required to conduct this assessment until 9 years after promulgation.
Specifically, section 112(c), as amended, directs the Administrator to develop
a list of all categories or {pg 62612} subcategories of major and area sources, as
defined in section 112(a), emitting significant amounts of the HAP's listed in
section 112(b). Section 112(d) directs the Administrator to promulgate emission
standards for each listed category or subcategory of HAP sources. Such standards
will be applicable to both new and existing sources and shall require:
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section (including a prohibition on such emissions, where
achievable) that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts
and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new and existing sources in
the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies
42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2).
The Amendments further provide that ''the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable'' shall be subject to a ''floor'' which is
determined differently for new and existing sources. For new sources the standards
set shall not be any less stringent than ''the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source.'' For existing sources, the
standards may not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in each category or
subcategory of 30 or more sources. (Smaller categories or subcategories are limited
to the average of the best five performing sources in the category or subcategory.)
3. The Definition of Source Category and Source
The definition of source is an important element of Section 112 standards
because it describes the emission points to which each standard applies. The
definition of source is fundamental to the determination of the MACT floor and the
evaluation of regulatory options more stringent than the floor. This section
describes some of the factors that the Administrator took into consideration in
selecting the definition of source for the SOCMI source category.
Section 112(c) directs the Administrator to create a list of source categories
for MACT standards such that '' t o the extent practicable, the categories and
subcategories listed under this subsection shall be consistent with the list of
source categories established pursuant to section 111 and Part C.'' As is clear
from a review of those existing lists, the categories listed are generally broadly
drawn. For example, the Part C list includes fossil-fuel fired steam electric
plants of more than 250,000,000 Btu/hr heat input, iron and steel mill plants,
petroleum refineries and chemical process plants and the section 111 list includes
petroleum manufacturing and marketing, plywood manufacture, glass and crude oil and
natural gas production. Listing the SOCMI as a category on the section 112(c) list
(57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) is consistent with the general broad categorization of
the section 111 and part C lists.
Section 112(d) directs the Administrator to set standards for all ''major
sources'' within every listed category. Area sources meeting the requirements of
sections 112(c)(3) or 112(k) must also be regulated. Major sources are ''stationary
sources,'' or groups of stationary sources, of a given size, as defined in section
112(a)(1). The definition of ''stationary source'' included in section 112 is
identical to the definition used in section 111(a) which is ''any building,
structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.''
42 U.S.C. 7411(a). However, section 112 as amended does not require that the
standards set under section 112(d) be set for the same components of the categories
as was done under section 111. Thus, there is no requirement that section 112(d)
standards for sources in the SOCMI be set for precisely the same portions of the
industry as NSPS.
As the Supreme Court has recognized in Chevron, USA, Inc., v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (hereafter referred to as Chevron), EPA has
broad discretion to define ''source.'' The Court recognized in Chevron that if any
Congressional intent can be discerned from the statutory language of section
111(a)(3) (the definition of source that is used in section 112), ''the listing of
overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than confine, the
scope of the EPA's power to regulate particular sources in order to best effectuate
the policies of the Act.'' Chevron. Thus, the court found that a ''source'' can
encompass ''any discrete, but integrated operation, which pollutes.'' Chevron. As
such, it could also encompass an entire plant and EPA has flexibility, within the
broad definition of ''stationary source,'' to define the source for each section
112(d) standard as broadly or narrowly as is appropriate for the particular
industry being regulated.
For the HON, EPA is proposing to define ''source'' for the SOCMI source
category as the process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater
collection and treatment operations, and equipment leaks in the organic HAP
emitting chemical manufacturing processes that are located in a single facility
covering a contiguous area under common control. With this definition of source,
all SOCMI plant sites that are major sources under section 112, approximately 350,
will be subject to the standard.
One of the implications of the definition of source proposed for the SOCMI
source category is that a single ''floor,'' as defined in section 112(d)(3), is
applicable to the entire SOCMI operation regulated by the HON. Thus, in setting
MACT for the SOCMI, EPA had to first determine the floor for new and existing SOCMI
sources. To determine the floor for existing sources, EPA assessed the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing SOCMI
sources. To determine the floor for new sources, EPA assessed the emissions
limitations achieved by the best performing existing source in the source category.
The EPA then evaluated the costs and non-air quality impacts of control before
arriving at new and existing standards at least as stringent as the new and
existing floors for the SOCMI source category.
4. Authority for Emissions Averaging
Under Section 112, the Administrator has legal authority to permit affected
sources to comply with the standard through emissions averaging. Section 112(d)
provides that standards are to be established for each category or subcategory of
sources listed by the Administrator, and that such standards shall be applicable to
sources within those categories or subcategories. The statute does not define
source category, nor, as explained above, does it impose precise limits on how the
Administrator may define source. Thus, the Administrator has the discretion to
define the source category and the source either narrowly or broadly. In this case,
the Administrator is proposing to exercise that discretion to define source broadly
to include all the emission points relating to SOCMI production.
In setting the standard, the Administrator is required to determine a floor for
the entire category or subcategory, and then set a standard applicable to each
source within that category that is at least as stringent as the floor. In
determining whether the standard should be more stringent than the floor and by how
much, the Administrator is to consider, among other things, the cost of achieving
such additional reductions. The statutory provisions do not limit how the {pg
62613} standard is to be set beyond requiring that it be applicable to all sources
in a category and be at least as stringent as the floor. Therefore, the relevant
statutory language does not prohibit EPA from allowing a source to meet MACT
through use of emissions averaging as long as every source in the category is
required to comply, averaging does not cross source boundaries, and the standard is
set at a level at least as stringent as the floor. As further discussed in section
VII.F of this notice, the EPA is seeking comment on a complementary legal
interpretation of sections 112(d) and 112(i) of the Act.
In addition, it should be noted that Congress explicitly provided that cost
should be considered in setting the standard. Emissions averaging is a means of
achieving the reductions required by the standard in a cost effective way, and is
thus clearly in line with Congressional intent.
D. Policy Goals
The SOCMI component of the HON is expected to result in the greatest emissions
reduction likely to be achieved by any single source category being regulated under
section 112. As such, regulating this industry represents a significant first step
toward fulfilling the mandate of section 112 to reduce emissions of HAP's. In
addition, SOCMI facilities, or sources, tend to be large individual emitters of
HAP's, which are generally thought to pose potential health hazards at the local
level.
The EPA recognizes that the HAP's covered by the HON represent a wide range of
toxicities, a variety of potential toxic effects, and a variety of exposure levels.
The EPA also recognizes clear public interest in reducing HAP emissions from the
SOCMI as much as is achievable, based upon the potential for health and
environmental benefits from HAP emission reductions of this magnitude.
Aside from the general goal of maximum achievable emissions reduction, the EPA
has endeavored to structure the proposed rule to incorporate several other goals:
overall administrative simplicity, allowing flexibility in implementation in order
to reduce costs, encouraging pollution prevention, and ensuring enforceability.
Some goals such as flexibility and encouraging pollution prevention reinforce each
other, while other goals such as flexibility and enforceability may seem
contradictory. The EPA has striven to find a workable balance among the potentially
contradictory goals, and is requesting comment on the proposed solutions in this
notice.
E. Major Policy Decisions
This section provides a discussion of the major policy decisions that provide
the framework for this rule, and the context in which those decisions were reached.
1. The Definition of Source
For the SOCMI source category, ''source'' is defined as the set of emission
points in the organic HAP-emitting processes used to produce synthetic organic
chemicals that are in a contiguous area under common control.
The Administrator carefully considered the previously described statutory
requirements, legal history, and Congressional intent in selecting the definition
of source for the SOCMI source category. In addition, the Administrator considered
the technical concerns regarding implementation and enforcement of the rule.
Specifically, the Administrator wanted to select a definition of source that would
provide flexibility in compliance with the rule, while maintaining enforceability.
Thus, the principal rationale for adopting this definition of source is to allow
flexibility in compliance, specifically to facilitate use of emissions averaging as
a means of compliance with the rule.
The Administrator considered this flexibility for compliance important because
of the diversity among SOCMI facilities. Although the rule being proposed today
sets national standards, it is based on a model analysis because data on all the
plant configurations in this industry are not available. While this model analysis
may reflect the characteristics of the industry as whole, it does not account for
unique operational scenarios at individual sources. Emissions averaging allows the
owners or operators of SOCMI sources to seek the least costly way for their
individual sources to meet the allowable emissions level in this Federal rule.
2. The Floor
In setting MACT standards, the EPA must establish the floor for a source
category because the Act specifies that each standard be at least as stringent as
the floor for the relevant source category. However, EPA did not have sourcewide
data to determine the floor for the source as defined for the SOCMI source
category. As a result, EPA examined available data on each kind of emission point
included in the source to determine the emission reductions achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of each for existing sources; and, for new sources, the best-
controlled similar emission point.
Existing Federal and State regulations were used to determine current control
levels on the emission points regulated by subpart G of the HON. This approach was
necessary because of the difficulty of conducting a costly and time-consuming data
collection effort in the time allocated for developing the rule. The EPA does not
believe the results from this approach are significantly different from what they
would be if source-specific data had been collected. Using this process to
establish a floor for the emission points regulated by subpart G ensures that the
control level of the standard will be equivalent to the emission control level for
the best-controlled 12 percent of SOCMI facilities.
For subpart H, the negotiating committee agreed that the requirements of the
negotiated rule constitute MACT for equipment leaks. Further rationale for the
negotiated regulation for equipment leaks is given in section VIII of this
preamble.
3. The Control Requirements
Once the floor level of control was established, EPA considered the options for
control requirements more stringent than the floor. As previously noted, the Act
specifies that EPA must choose control requirements as stringent as, or more
stringent than, the floor level of control. As required by the statute, when
considering control requirements beyond the floor, EPA considered the relative cost
of achieving different levels of emissions reductions, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and the energy requirements of the controls. While non-air
quality health and environmental impacts have not been quantified for this proposed
rulemaking, the control levels proposed in this rule reflect a recognition of the
large magnitude of emissions that can be controlled at relatively reasonable costs
on a national level, and the magnitude and variety of HAP's emitted from large
individual sources. The Administrator believes that the proposed rule represents
the maximum degree of emissions reductions achievable with reasonably cost-
effective controls for most kinds of equipment covered by this rulemaking, given
the large size of most major sources, as well as the magnitude and variety of their
emissions.
4. The Form of the Standard
The proposed HON establishes a control requirement for each kind of emission
point regulated by subparts G and H. To facilitate emissions averaging, the
Administrator chose to have the subpart G standard also establish an {pg 62614}
overall allowable emissions level for the source as a whole. The allowable
emissions would be equal to the sum of the emissions from each point in the source,
excluding equipment leaks, if the required controls were applied. As such, the
allowable emissions level is set for a given mix of emission points, and the
allowable emissions will change as the number or kind of emission points in the
source changes.
Though the form of the standard is an allowable emissions level, compliance can
be determined on a point- by-point basis for emission points not included in
emissions averages. Point-by-point compliance is determined based on the types of
controls in place on individual emission points, their performance, and their
operating conditions.
5. Emissions Averaging
With emissions averaging, if an owner or operator does not wish to control a
particular emission point, the uncontrolled emissions from that point can be offset
by emissions below what is required by subpart G at one or more other points.
Although subpart G allows for extensive use of emissions averaging, it is expected
that it will only be used for a limited number of emission points at any one
source.
Section III.B.6 provides a more detailed discussion of how emissions averaging
is designed to work and section VII.F provides a detailed discussion of the issues
considered by the EPA in the process of developing the emissions averaging policy.
In section VII.F, the EPA seeks comment on numerous aspects of the emissions
averaging policy included in the proposed rule.
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
This section of the notice summarizes the proposed rule. For an explanation of
the process used to select these requirements and the rationale for specific
provisions, see sections VI, VII, and VIII.
The proposed rule consists of three subparts in 40 CFR part 63. Subpart F
provides the applicability criteria for the rule, requires that owners and
operators of SOCMI sources comply with Subparts G and H, and specifies general
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subparts G and H provide the specific
control, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the respective
kinds of emission points.
A. Summary of Subpart F
Subpart F lists the HAP's regulated by this rule, specifies what is included in
the SOCMI source category, and details the seven non-SOCMI processes that are also
subject to subpart H. In addition, subpart F presents definitions and general
information on compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that are
applicable for sources subject to subpart G or H.
1. Regulated Pollutants
Subpart F lists 112 organic HAP's that EPA has determined may be emitted from
SOCMI processes because they are either produced as a product or used as a
reactant. The emissions of these 112 organic chemicals are regulated by subparts F
and G. In addition to these 112 organic HAP's, 37 other organic HAP's are regulated
by subparts F and H. The complete list of 149 organic HAP's is presented in subpart
H.
2. Definition of Source Category and Source
Sources in the SOCMI source category and seven non-SOCMI processes would be
subject to the proposed rule.
To define the SOCMI source category for purposes of the HON, subpart F lists
396 chemicals considered SOCMI products. The EPA has determined that the production
of these chemicals may result in organic HAP emissions. As a result, chemical
manufacturing processes used to produce one of these 396 SOCMI chemicals as a
product are in the SOCMI source category. These processes would make up the SOCMI
sources that would be subject to subparts F, G, and H of this rule. If a process
produces one of the 396 listed chemicals but does not use a HAP as a reactant or
produce a HAP as a product, by-product, or co-product, it would not be subject to
this proposed rule.
For the SOCMI source category, a source comprises all the SOCMI chemical
manufacturing processes that are subject to the rule and located at one contiguous
geographic site under common control. Subpart F defines the SOCMI source as the
collection of process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater streams
(and associated residuals), and equipment leaks in the relevant chemical
manufacturing processes. As listed above, the first four of the five kinds of
emission points in a SOCMI source would be subject to subparts F and G. However,
SOCMI equipment leaks will be subject to subparts F and H. As such, a SOCMI source
is subject to all three of the HON's subparts.
In contrast to the sources in the SOCMI source category, sources in the seven
non-SOCMI processes would be covered by subparts F and H only. For these processes,
the source would include only equipment leaks. As explained in the draft schedule
for the promulgation of emission standards (57 FR 44147), EPA is considering
regulating the other kinds of emission points in these seven processes in future
section 112 standards. The seven processes subject to subpart H of the HON are
included in 20 different source categories or subsets of source categories. The
exact relationship of the HON's seven equipment leak processes to the source
categories listed for section 112 standards is specified in Table 1 of the draft
schedule for the promulgation of emission standards.
3. Other Provisions
The proposed subpart F establishes the compliance dates for new and existing
sources and requires the source be properly operated and maintained at all times.
As part of proper operation and maintenance provisions, sources are required to
include procedures for managing wastewaters generated during maintenance
turnarounds and emptying and purging of equipment during routine maintenance in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Monitoring of cooling water is also
required to detect leaks in heat exchange equipment. If a leak is detected, the
heat exchanger must be repaired.
Procedures for obtaining permission to use an alternative means of emission
reduction are included in the proposed subpart F. The applicability of the General
Provisions in subpart A to sources subject to subparts F, G, and H is clarified.
General performance test requirements are specified, including the provision that
performance tests be conducted under representative operating conditions. The
General Reporting and Recordkeeping Provisions of the proposed subpart F include
the requirement that required records and reports must be maintained for 5 years,
and specify where reports must be sent.
B. Summary of Subpart G
1. Overview
The proposed subpart G requires that organic HAP emissions be limited to the
level that could be achieved by application of a reference control technology to
each Group 1 emission point in the source. Although controls are not required for
Group 2 emission points, both Group 1 emission points and Group 2 emission points
are included in the equation defining the source's allowable emissions level.
However, emission points associated with equipment that is no longer operational
are not to be included in the {pg 62615} calculation of the allowable emissions
because these points are not subject to this proposed rule.
Though subpart G is structured as an allowable emissions level, EPA does not
anticipate that any owner or operator would actually calculate emissions estimates
for every emission point at the source in order to comply with the HON. Actual
emissions estimates would be required, by the HON, for only those emission points
that are included in emissions averages.
The owner or operator can utilize two methods to demonstrate compliance with
the HON. The first method is application of the reference control technologies to
achieve the required level of emission reduction at Group 1 emission points. This
compliance approach is described in sections 2 through 5 below. The second
compliance approach is emissions averaging. Emissions averaging is described in
section 6 below. Section 7 describes the HON's recordkeeping and reporting
provisions.
2. Process Vent Provisions
A process vent means a gas stream that is continuously discharged during the
operation of the unit from an air oxidation process unit, reactor process unit, or
distillation operation within a SOCMI chemical manufacturing process. Process vents
include gas streams that are discharged directly to the atmosphere and gas streams
discharged to the atmosphere after diversion through a product recovery device. The
proposed rule would apply only to process vents that are associated with continuous
(nonbatch) processes and emit vent streams containing more than 0.005 weight-
percent HAP. The process vent provisions do not apply to vents from control devices
installed to comply with the wastewater provisions of subpart G. (Air emissions
from control devices installed to remove HAP's from the wastewater streams are
required by the wastewater provisions to be ducted to a 95-percent efficient air
emissions control device.) Process vents exclude relief valve discharges and leaks
from equipment regulated under subpart H, but include vents from product
accumulator vessels. Vents from product accumulator vessels that are complying with
the process vent provisions of subpart G are not subject to the equipment leak
provisions in subpart H.
The proposed process vent provisions require the owner or operator to calculate
a TRE index value to determine whether each process vent is a Group 1 or Group 2
vent, except that the owner or operator can elect to comply with the control
requirements without calculating the TRE index. The TRE index value is determined
after the last recovery device in the process or prior to venting to the
atmosphere. The TRE calculation involves an emissions test or engineering
assessment and use of the TRE equations in the proposed regulation. Process vents
with a TRE index equal to or less than 1.0 would be Group 1 vents and must be
controlled to the level of the reference control technology, 98 percent HAP
reduction or a reduction to 20 ppmv of HAP, using control devices. The proposed
rule encourages use of recovery devices for additional product recovery because an
owner or operator of a Group 1 process vent may add product recovery devices or
otherwise reduce emissions to the extent that the TRE becomes greater than 1.0 and
the Group 1 vent becomes a Group 2 vent. No additional control is required for
Group 2 process vents but the TRE must be maintained above 1.0. Performance test
provisions are included for Group 1 process vents to verify that the control device
achieves the required performance.
Halogenated streams which use a combustion device to comply with 98 percent or
20 ppmv HAP emission {pg 62616} reduction must vent the emissions from the
combustor to an acid gas scrubber prior to venting to the atmosphere. The scrubber
must reduce the overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent or
reduce the outlet concentration of each individual hydrogen halide or halogen to
0.5 mg/dscm or less. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary
to demonstrate compliance are also included in the proposed process vent
provisions.
3. Storage Vessel Provisions
A storage vessel means a tank or other vessel storing the feed or product for a
SOCMI chemical manufacturing process if the liquid is on the list of organic HAP's
in subpart F. The storage vessel provisions do not apply to the following: (1)
Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles, (2) pressure vessels designed to
operate in excess of 204.9 kPa (29.7 psia), (3) vessels with capacities smaller
than 38 m sup 3 (10,000 gal), (4) product accumulator vessels, (5) wastewater
tanks, and (6) vessels storing liquids that contain organic HAP's only as
impurities. An impurity is produced coincidentally with another chemical substance
and is processed, used, or distributed with it.
The proposed storage provisions require that one of the following control
systems be applied to Group 1 storage vessels: (1) An internal floating roof with
proper seals and fittings, (2) an external floating roof with proper seals and
fittings, (3) an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof with
proper seals and fittings, or (4) a closed vent system with a 95- percent efficient
control device. The storage provisions give details on the types of seals and
fittings allowed. Monitoring and compliance provisions include periodic visual
inspections of vessels, roof seals, and fittings, as well as internal inspections.
If a control device is used, the owner or operator must establish appropriate
monitoring procedures. Reports and records of inspections, repairs, and other
information necessary to determine compliance are also required by the proposed
storage provisions. No controls are required for Group 2 storage vessels.
4. Transfer Operations Provisions
Transfer operations are defined as the loading of liquid products that are on
the list of organic HAP's in subpart F from a transfer rack within a SOCMI chemical
manufacturing process into a tank truck or railcar. Transfer rack means the total
of loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and
valves necessary to load tank trucks or railcars. The transfer provisions do not
apply to the loading of liquid organic HAP's at an operating pressure in excess of
204.9 kPa (29.7 psia); loading of marine vessels; racks loading liquids that
contain organic HAP's only as impurities; or racks loading liquid organic HAP's if
emissions are returned to a storage vessel in a vapor balancing system.
The proposed transfer provisions require control of Group 1 transfer racks to
achieve 98 percent organic HAP reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv.
Combustion devices or product recovery devices may be used to comply with this
requirement. Alternatively, vapor balancing systems may be used.
The transfer provisions include design specifications for vapor collection
systems. Specifically, vapor collection systems are required to route the organic
vapors to a control device or to a vapor balancing system and are required to
operate without detectable emissions. In addition, the proposed provisions require
that liquid organic HAP's be loaded only into DOT certified vehicles or vehicles
that have been determined to be vapor tight according to Method 27 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
Halogenated streams which use a combustion device to comply with 98 percent or
20 ppmv HAP emission reduction must vent the emissions from the combustor to an
acid gas scrubber prior to venting to the atmosphere. The scrubber must reduce the
overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent or reduce the
outlet concentration of each individual hydrogen halide or halogen to 0.5 mg/dscm
or less.
Initial performance tests of control device efficiency are required, and
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions are specified. Controls are not
required for Group 2 racks.
5. Wastewater Provisions
The wastewater streams to which the proposed standard applies are any organic
HAP-containing water or process fluid discharged into an individual drain system
and includes process wastewater, maintenance-turnaround wastewater, and routine
maintenance wastewater. These provisions also apply to organic HAP- containing
materials (i.e., residuals) separated from wastewater. The characteristics of the
process wastewater stream (e.g., flow rate, VOHAP concentration) are determined for
the point of generation. Examples of a process wastewater stream include, but are
not limited to, wastewater streams from process equipment, product or feed tank
drawdown, cooling tower blowdown, steam trap condensate, reflux, and fluids drained
into and material recovered from waste management units. Examples of maintenance-
turnaround wastewater streams are those generated by descaling of heat exchanger
tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, and draining of pumps into
an individual drain system. For purposes of the proposed standard, an organic HAP-
containing wastewater stream is any wastewater stream that has a HAP concentration
of 5 ppmw or greater and a flow rate of 0.02 l pm or greater.
The proposed process wastewater provisions include detailed flow charts to
assist in determining applicability and control requirements. Controls must be
applied to Group 1 wastewater streams, unless the source complies with the source-
wide mass flow rate provisions of sections 63.132(c)(5) through (c)(7) of subpart G
or if the Group 1 stream is returned to a process. Controls are not required for
Group 2 wastewater streams.
The proposed process wastewater provisions include equipment and work practice
provisions for the transport and handling of wastewater streams between the point
of generation and the wastewater treatment processes. These provisions include use
of covers and enclosures and closed vent systems to route organic HAP vapors from
the transport and handling equipment. The proposed provisions also include
requirements for reduction of VOHAP concentration in wastewater streams. The
required removal efficiencies are based on steam stripping. A variety of formats
(e.g., percent reduction, effluent concentration, mass removal) are proposed to
provide flexibility as described in section VII.E of this notice. Finally, air
emissions routed through closed-vent systems from covers, enclosures, and treatment
processes must be reduced by 95 percent or to a level of 20 ppmv. This reduction
could be achieved using a combustion or recovery device. For demonstrating
compliance with the various requirements, owners or operators have a choice of
conducting performance tests or documenting engineering calculations. Appropriate
compliance, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions are included in the
regulation.
6. Emissions Averaging
Under the proposed subpart G, owners or operators may seek approval to comply
by emissions averaging with any process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, or
wastewater streams. Equipment leaks are regulated under a separate subpart and may
not be included in an emissions average at this time.
a. Credit/debit system. To utilize emissions averaging under the proposed rule,
the owner or operator must identify all the emission points that would be included
in an average and estimate their allowable and actual emissions. The EPA has
established a control efficiency, or percent emissions reduction, for the reference
control technology for each kind of emission point. The owner or operator would use
these reference control technologies to estimate the allowable emissions for each
emission point.
For each Group 1 point, the allowable emissions level is the residual emissions
after application of a reference control technology. As a result, all Group 1
emission points that are not being controlled with the reference control technology
or an equivalent are emitting more than their allowable emissions. These points are
generating emission ''debits.'' Emission debits are calculated by subtracting the
amount of emissions allowed by the standard for a given emission point from the
amount of actual emissions for that point.
If a Group 1 emission point is controlled by a device or a pollution prevention
measure that does not achieve the control level of the reference control
technology, the amount of emission debits will be based on the difference between
the actual control level being achieved and what the reference control would have
achieved. For example, if a pollution prevention measure that achieves a 70 percent
reduction in emissions is used on a Group 1 wastewater operation, and the reference
control would have achieved 98 percent emissions reduction on that emission point,
then the debit would be equal to the difference, 28 percent of the uncontrolled
emissions.
The owner or operator must control other emission points to a level more
stringent than what is required for that kind of point to generate emission
''credits.'' Emission credits are calculated by subtracting the amount of emissions
that actually exist for a given emission point from the amount of emissions that
would be allowed under subpart G, and then possibly applying a discount factor. The
EPA is soliciting comments on use of a discount factor for emissions credits, and
is proposing a range from 0 to 20 percent. To be in compliance, the owner or
operator must be able to show that the source's emission credits were greater than
or equal to its emission debits.
Credits may come from:
(1) Control of Group 1 emission points using technologies that EPA has rated as
being more effective than the appropriate reference control technology;
(2) Control of Group 2 emission points; and
(3) Pollution prevention projects that result in control levels more stringent
than what the standard requires for the relevant point or points.
With the exception of some storage vessels and process vents, use of the
reference control technology at a level more stringent than its assigned efficiency
would not generate credits. If EPA cannot or has not determined the control
efficiency of a control technology or work practice, it cannot be used to generate
credits. The EPA will assign control efficiencies to new control devices or
practices upon request.
Specific restrictions on what can be counted as a credit are discussed in
section VII.F of this preamble. Equations for calculating debits and credits are
provided in section 63.150 of the proposed subpart G.
b. Compliance. The proposed rule requires that emission averaging plans be
reviewed as part of a source's Implementation Plan or operating permit application.
The controls in the {pg 62617} averaging plan would be cited in a source's
Implementation Plan or operating permit. Thus, to show compliance using emissions
averaging, the owner or operator must prove both:
(1) The appropriate controls have been applied and maintained; and
(2) That the amount of emission credits and debits meet certain quarterly and
annual requirements.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting
The proposed rule requires sources complying with subpart G to keep records and
submit reports of information necessary to document compliance. Records must be
kept for 5 years. The following five types of reports must be submitted to the
Administrator: (1) Initial Notification, (2) Implementation Plan (if an operating
permit application has not been submitted), (3) Notification of Compliance Status,
(4) Periodic Reports, and (5) other reports. The requirements for each of the five
types of reports are summarized below.
a. Initial Notification. The Initial Notification is due 120 days after the
date of promulgation for existing sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days
before commencement of construction or reconstruction, or 45 days after
promulgation of subpart G, whichever is later. The notification must list the
chemical manufacturing processes that are subject to subpart G, and which
provisions may apply (e.g., process vents, transfer operations, storage vessels,
and/or wastewater provisions). A detailed identification of emission points is not
necessary for the Initial Notification. However, the notification must include a
statement of whether the source expects that it can achieve compliance by the
specified compliance date.
b. Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan details how the source plans to
comply with subpart G. An Implementation Plan would be required only for sources
that have not yet submitted an operating permit application.
Existing sources must submit the Implementation Plan at different times for
emission points included in averages and emission points not included in averages.
The Implementation Plan for emission points included in the average would be due 18
months prior to the date of compliance. The Implementation Plan for emission points
not included in an emissions average would be due 12 months prior to the date of
compliance. For new sources, Implementation Plans would be submitted with the
Notification of Compliance Status.
The information in the Implementation Plan should be incorporated into the
source's operating permit application. The terms and conditions of the plan, as
approved by the permit authority, would then be incorporated into the operating
permit.
For points included in emissions averaging, the Implementation Plan would
include: An identification of all points in the average and whether they are Group
1 or Group 2 points; the specific control technique or pollution prevention measure
that will be applied to each point; the control efficiency for each control used in
the average; the projected credit or debit generated by each point; and the overall
expected credits and debits. The plan must also certify that the same types of
testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping that are required by the proposed
rules for Group 1 points will be done for all points (both Group 1 and Group 2)
included in an emissions average. If a source requests approval to monitor a unique
parameter or use a unique recordkeeping and reporting system, a rationale must be
included in the Implementation Plan.
For emission points not included in an average, the Implementation Plan would
include a list of emission points subject to the process vents, storage vessels,
transfer operations, and wastewater provisions and whether each point is Group 1 or
Group 2. The control technology or method of compliance planned for each Group 1
point must be specified. The plan must also certify that appropriate testing,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping will be done for each Group 1 point. If a
source requests approval to monitor a unique parameter, a rationale must be
included.
c. Notification of Compliance Status. The Notification of Compliance Status
would be submitted 150 days after the source's compliance date. It contains the
information for Group 1 points and for all points in emissions averages, necessary
to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved, such as: The results of any
performance tests for process vents, transfer operations, and wastewater emission
points; one complete test report for each test method used for a particular kind of
emission point; TRE determinations for process vents; design analyses for storage
vessels and wastewater emission points; site-specific ranges for each monitored
parameter for each emission point and the rationale for the range; and values of
all parameters used to calculate emission credits and debits for emissions
averaging.
d. Periodic Reports. Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted
semiannually. However, there are two exceptions. Quarterly reports must be
submitted for all points included in an emissions average. In addition, if
monitoring results show that the parameter values for an emission point are outside
the established range for more than 1 percent of the operating time in a reporting
period, or the monitoring system is out of service for more than 5 percent of the
time, the regulatory authority may request that the owner or operator submit
quarterly reports for that emission point. After 1 year, semiannual reporting can
be resumed, unless the regulatory authority requests continuation of quarterly
reports.
All Periodic Reports would include information required to be reported under
the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each emission point. For emission
points involved in emissions averages, the report would include the results of the
calculations of credits and debits for each month and for the quarter. For
continuously monitored parameters, the data on those periods when the parameters
are outside their established ranges are included in the reports. Periodic Reports
would also include results of any performance tests conducted during the reporting
period and instances when required inspections revealed problems. Additional
information the source is required to report under its operating permit or
Implementation Plan would also be described in Periodic Reports.
e. Other reports. Other reports would be submitted as required by the
provisions for each kind of point. Other reports include: Reports of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; process changes that change the compliance status of
process vents; and requests for extensions of repair and notifications of
inspections for storage vessels and wastewater.
C. Summary of Subpart H
The following is a general summary of the requirements and concepts of the
negotiated regulation. The reader is referred to the proposed standard for detail
of specific provisions.
1. Applicability
The standards would apply to equipment in VHAP service 300 or more hours per
year associated with a production process manufacturing any of the 396 chemicals
listed in the proposed standard that make or use as a reactant one of the organic
VHAP's listed in Sec. 63.183 of the regulation. They would also apply to equipment
{pg 62618} handling specific chemicals for a limited number of listed non-SOCMI
processes. Petroleum refinery processes will not be covered by the proposed
standard; a separate rulemaking will be conducted for those processes. It should be
noted that although refinery processes would not be affected by this standard,
organic chemical manufacturing units (e.g., benzene units) located on refinery
property would be affected.
The equipment subject to the proposed standard includes valves, pumps,
connectors, compressors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, sampling
connection systems, instrumentation systems, agitators, product accumulator
vessels, and closed-vent systems and control devices. ''In VHAP service'' means
that equipment contains or contacts a fluid that is 5 percent or greater VHAP's.
The standards would also split the covered processes into five distinct groups
to which the regulation would apply over time. The rule would apply to the first
group 6 months after promulgation. Thereafter, the rule would become applicable to
another group every 3 months until all the processes were covered.
a. Pumps and valves. The regulation is structured similarly for pumps and
valves. Standards for both would be implemented in three phases and both standards
have associated QIP's. The first and second phases for both types of equipment
consist of an LDAR program, with lower leak definitions in the second phase. The
LDAR program involves a periodic check for organic vapor leaks with a portable
instrument; if leaks are found, they must be repaired within a certain period of
time. In the third phase, the periodic monitoring (a work practice standard) would
be coupled with a base performance level (i.e., allowable percent leaking
components).
As part of the base program, pumps would require monthly monitoring using an
instrument and weekly visual inspection. Valves would initially require quarterly
monitoring, but the length of time between monitoring could be increased if the
percent leaking valves demonstrate incrementally better performance, as specified
in the rule, over the base performance level.
Special provisions apply to pumps in food/medical service, pumps in
polymerizing monomer service, ''leakless'' pumps, and unsafe- and difficult-to-
monitor valves. Plants with less than 250 valves in VHAP service are subject only
to LDAR and not the base performance level.
If the base performance levels for a type of equipment are not achieved, based
on a rolling average of monitoring results, owners or operators must, in the case
of pumps, enter into a QIP, and in the case of valves may either enter into a QIP
or implement monthly LDAR. The QIP is a concept that enables plants exceeding the
base performance levels to eventually achieve the desired levels without incurring
penalty or being in a noncompliance status. As long as the requirements of the QIP
are met, the plant is in compliance. The basic QIP consists of information
gathering, determining superior performing technologies, and replacing poorer
performers with the superior technologies until the base performance levels are
achieved.
b. Connectors. The rule also provides for performance standards for connectors
in terms of percent leaking connectors in each process unit. The negotiated
standard for connectors is not phased in, i.e., the performance level applies as
soon as the rule is effective for the process unit. Consistent achievement of the
base performance level would result in monitoring being required less frequently.
Failure to achieve the base performance level would cause the plant to remain in an
annual monitoring cycle.
Special provisions would apply to certain existing screwed connectors and to
connectors that are inaccessible or unsafe to monitor or repair.
c. Other equipment. Standards for compressors, open-ended lines, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, and closed vent systems and control
devices remain essentially unchanged from existing regulations (see 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V). Agitators must meet LDAR requirements, but not base performance levels.
Pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service; instrumentation
systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid service are subject to instrument
monitoring only if evidence of a potential leak is found through sight, sound, or
smell. Instrumentation systems consist of smaller pipes and tubing that carry
samples of process fluids to be analyzed to determine process operating conditions.
2. Delay of Repair
Under certain conditions delay of repair beyond the required 15 days may be
acceptable. Examples of these situations include where: (1) A piece of equipment
cannot be repaired without a process unit shutdown, (2) equipment is taken out of
VHAP service, (3) emissions from repair will exceed emissions from delay of repair
until the next shutdown, (4) pumps with SMS are replaced with DMS, and (5) valves
assembly supplies have been depleted from stocks.
3. Alternative Standards
Generally, an alternative means of emission limitation may be used if an owner
or operator can demonstrate emission reductions equal to or better than that
required by the standards. Specific alternative standards have been written for
batch processes and enclosed buildings. Batch processes can choose either to meet
similar standards to those for continuous processes, with monitoring frequency
prorated to time in use of VHAP, or to periodically pressure test the entire
system. Enclosed buildings may forego monitoring if the building is kept under a
negative pressure and all emissions are routed through a closed vent system to an
approved control device.
4. Test Methods and Procedures
The standards would retain the use of Method 21 to detect leaks. Method 21
requires a portable organic vapor analyzer to monitor for leaks from equipment in
use. A ''leak'' is a concentration specified in the regulation for the type of
equipment being monitored and is based on the instrument response to methane (the
calibration gas) in air. The observed screening value may require adjustment for
response factor relative to methane if the weighted response factor of the stream
exceeds a specified multiplier. Method 18 is to be used to determine organic
content of a process stream. Test procedures using either a gas or a liquid for
pressure testing the batch system are specified to detect for leaks.
5. Recordkeeping
The standards would require a readily accessible recordkeeping system. Records
required include identification of equipment that would be covered by the
standards, identification of equipment that is found to be leaking during a
monitoring period and when it is repaired, testing associated with batch processes,
design specifications of closed vent systems and control devices, test results from
performance tests or testing process streams for organic content, and information
required by equipment in QIP. Other recordkeeping requirements also apply, and the
reader is referred to Section 63.181.
6. Reporting
Owners and operators would be required to submit an initial report that
describes the source and all equipment {pg 62619} subject to these standards. Every
6 months, a report must be submitted that summarizes the results of monitoring and
performance tests conducted during that period, changes to the process unit,
changes in monitoring frequency or monitoring alternatives, and/or initiation of a
QIP. Reports can be submitted on electronic media that is compatible with the
system used by the Administrator or the State permitting authority.
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED RULE
This section presents the environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts
resulting from the control of HAP emissions under the proposed rule. It is
estimated that approximately 370 sources and 1,050 chemical manufacturing processes
would be required to apply controls by the proposed standards.
The analysis of impacts was performed assuming the requirements of the rule
would be met through point-by-point compliance instead of emissions averaging.
Under emissions averaging, the emission reductions would be approximately the same
or greater, but presumably, since emission averaging is voluntary, the costs of
control would be lower. It is not possible to quantify the potential cost savings
from emissions averaging because the savings will depend on how many sources use
emissions averaging and the mix of emission points and controls that are included
in emissions averages. At this time, the EPA does not have the data necessary to
estimate these parameters. The EPA requests comments on the potential savings from
the proposed emissions averaging provisions.
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline set at the level of control in the
absence of the proposed rule. The estimates include the impacts of applying control
to: (1) Existing emission points and (2) additional emission points from SOCMI
process units that are expected to begin operation over a 5-year period. Thus, the
estimates represent annual impacts occurring in the fifth year. Assuming a SOCMI-
wide growth rate of 3 percent each year over a 5-year period, national impacts for
the emission points that will be added in the first 5 years of the rule are
estimated to be 16 percent of total national impacts in the fifth year.
The environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts are discussed in greater
detail in the BID, Volumes 1A, 1B, and 1C. Specifically, the impacts estimation
methodology is discussed in Volume 1A; the performance and costing methodologies of
the evaluated control technologies are discussed in Volume 1B; and the sources of
other environmental and energy impacts are discussed in Volume 1C.
A. Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include the reduction of HAP and VOC emissions, increases
in other air pollutants, and decreases in water pollution and solid waste resulting
from the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that emissions of HAP would be reduced
by 475,000 Mg/yr (522,500 tons/yr) and the emissions of VOC's would be reduced by
986,000 Mg/yr (1,085,000 tons/yr) (see Table 1).
TABLE 1.-National Primary Air Pollution Impacts in the Fifth
Year sup a
Emission points Equipment leaks
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 66,000
VOC sup b 84,000
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 53,000
VOC sup b 68,000
(percent)
HAP 80
VOC sup b 81
Emission points Process vents
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 317,000
VOC sup b 551,000
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 292,000
VOC sup b 460,000
(percent)
HAP 92
VOC sup b 83
Emission points Storage vessels
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 15,200
VOC sup b 15,200
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 5,560
VOC sup b 5,560
(percent)
HAP 37
VOC sup b 37
Emission points Wastewater collection and treatment
operations
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 198,000
VOC sup b 728,000
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 124,000
VOC sup b 452,000
(percent)
HAP 63
VOC sup b 62
Emission points Transfer loading operations
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 900
VOC sup b 900
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 500
VOC sup b 500
(percent)
HAP 56
VOC sup b 56
Total
Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)
HAP 597,000
VOC sup b 1,380,000
Emission reductions
(Mg/yr)
HAP 475,000
VOC sup b 986,000
(percent)
HAP 80
VOC sup b 71
sup a These numbers represent estimated values for the fifth
year. Existing emission points contribute 84 percent of the
total. Emission points associated with chemical manufacturing
process equipment built in the first 5 years of the standard
contribute 16 percent of the total.
sup b The VOC estimates consist of the sum of the HAP estimates
and the non-HAP VOC estimates.
Estimates of baseline emissions are presented in conjunction with emissions
reductions estimates to better illustrate the level of control being achieved by
the rule. Baseline emissions take into account the current estimated level of
emissions control, based on State and Federal regulations, for each SOCMI emission
point. As a result, baseline emissions reflect the level of control that would be
achieved in the absence of the proposed rule.
The baseline emission estimates in Table 1 include the extrapolation of
estimates for well-characterized processes to account for processes that could not
be characterized. Consequently, the Table 1 estimates contain considerable
uncertainty and are presented only to provide an estimate of the total nationwide
impact of the proposed rule. Regulatory alternatives were developed using
information only for the well-characterized processes and are discussed in section
VII.A.2 of this preamble.
On average, SOCMI sources generate over twice as much VOC emissions as HAP
emissions. Although the intent of the proposed rule is to reduce HAP emissions, the
control of HAP's also results in the control of non-HAP VOC's. The control
requirements of the HON would result in reduction of 80 percent of HAP emissions
and 71 percent of VOC emissions beyond the baseline control level.
There would be a very slight increase in emissions of CO and NO sub x, relative
to other sources of these pollutants, resulting from the on-site combustion of
fossil fuels as part of control device operations. Additional emissions of NO sub x
and CO resulting from increased electricity demand are not included in the impacts
presented. Under the proposed rule, estimates of increased emissions of CO and NO
sub x are 1,570 Mg/yr (1,730 tons/yr) and 15,700 Mg/yr (17,300 tons/yr),
respectively (see Table 2).
Table 2.- National CO and NO sub x Emissions Impacts in the
Fifth Year sup a
Emission points Equipment leaks
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 0
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 0
Emission points Process vents sup c
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 1,490
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 15,100
Emission points Storage vessels
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 0
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 0
Emission points Wastewater collection and treatment
operations sup d
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 80
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 600
Emission points Transfer loading operations sup c
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) sup e
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) sup e
Total
CO Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 1,570
NO sub x Emissions sup b (Mg/yr) 15,700 sup
sup a These numbers represent estimated values for the fifth
year. Existing emission points contribute 84 percent of the
total. Emission points associated with chemical manufacturing
process equipment built in the first 5 years of the standard
contribute 16 percent of the total.
sup b Emissions of these criteria pollutants are caused by
operation of control devices.
sup c Emissions result from the combustion of natural gas along
with the organic HAP emission streams in incinerators and flares.
sup d Emissions result from the combustion of various fossil
fuels to generate steam for use in a steam stripper.
sup e Emissions are less than 5 Mg/yr.
The impacts for process vents and transfer operations are based on the
assumptions that incinerators or flares are used to combust emission streams. To
the extent non-combustion controls are used to achieve compliance with the
standards, the actual CO and NO sub x emissions would be lower.
Impacts for water pollution and solid waste were judged to be negligible and
were not quantified as part of the impacts analysis. The basis for judging these
impacts to be negligible is discussed in chapter 5.0 of BID Volume 1A.
B. Energy Impacts
Increases in energy use were estimated for steam, natural gas, and electricity.
These three types of energy were compared and totaled on a BOE basis. Table 3 shows
the estimated individual and total energy use increases.
Table 3. National Energy Impacts in the Fifth Year sup a
Emission points
Equipment Leaks
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
(TJ) 0
Process Vents
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) 240
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 400
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 6,600
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 1,090
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 1,500
(TJ) 9,600
Storage Vessels
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) 15
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 25
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 25
(TJ) 160
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) 6
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 10
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 5,300
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 880
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 890
(TJ) 5,700
Transfer Loading Operations
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) sup e
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 50
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 10
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 0
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 0
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 10
(TJ) 60
Total
Electricity sup b
(10 sup 6 kw/hr/yr) 260
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 440
Natural gas sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 6,650
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 1,100
Steam sup c
(10 sup 9 Btu/yr) 5,300
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 880
Total sup d
(10 sup 3 BOE/yr) 2,420
(TJ) 15,500
sup a These numbers represent estimated values for the fifth
year. Existing emission points contribute 84 percent of the
total. Emission points associated with chemical manufacturing
process equipment built in the first 5 years of the standard
contribute 16 percent of the total.
sup b Conversion to BOE assumed a power plant heat rate of 10,000
Btu/kw-hr, heating value for oil of 144,400 Btu/gal, and 42
gal/bbl.
sup c Conversion to BOE assumed a heating value for oil of
144,400 Btu/gal and 42 gal/bbl.
sup d Due to rounding error, column totals may be slightly
different.
sup e Electricity usage is less than 1 * 10 fn 6 kw-hr/yr.
Under the proposed rule, estimates for total energy use are 260 million kw-
hr/yr of electricity, 6,650 billion Btu/yr of natural gas, and 5,300 billion Btu/yr
of steam. This equates to 15,500 TJ/yr (2.4 million BOE/yr).
C. Cost Impacts
Cost impacts include the capital costs of new control equipment, the cost of
energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and electricity) required to operate control
equipment, and operation and maintenance costs. Generally, cost impacts also
include cost savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the form
of emissions. Average cost effectiveness ($/Mg of pollutant removed) is also
presented as part of cost impacts. Average cost effectiveness is determined by
dividing the annual cost by the annual emission reduction.
Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that total capital costs would be $347
million (1989 dollars), and total annual costs, excluding the cost savings
attributable to equipment leaks, would be $134 million (1989 dollars) per year (see
Table 4). The impacts presented for the annual costs of controlling emissions from
equipment leaks reveal a cost savings. By avoiding losses from equipment leaks,
product is saved. The impacts analysis indicates that the value of the product that
is saved is higher than the costs incurred from applying the control required by
the rule. However, due to uncertainty about the true nature and magnitude of the
cost savings from controlling equipment leaks, the total impacts estimate for the
rule does not reflect this estimated cost savings. Instead, the total national
annual control cost estimate, as presented in Table 4, has no cost or cost savings
element for equipment leaks.
Table 4 . National Control Cost Impacts in the Fifth Year sup a
Emission points
Equipment Leaks
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 110
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) (1)
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) (20)
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) (10)
Process Vents
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 92
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) 75
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) 260
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) 160
Storage Vessels
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 49
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) 19
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) 3,400
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) 3,400
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operations
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 86
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) 35
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) 280
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) 80
Transfer Loading Operations
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 10
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) 5
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) 10,000
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) 10,000
Total sup c
Total capital costs (10 fn 6 $) 347
Total annual costs (10 fn 6 $/yr) 134
Average HAP cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg HAP) 280
Average VOC cost effectiveness sup b ($/Mg VOC) 140
sup a These numbers represent estimated values for the fifth
year. Existing emission points contribute 84 percent of the
total. Emission points associated with chemical manufacturing
process equipment built in the first 5 years of the standard
contribute 16 percent of the total.
sup b Average cost effectiveness values are determined by
dividing total annual costs by total annual emission reduction.
sup c Except for the Total Capital Costs column, the total
figures do not include an element for equipment leaks because the
analysis of equipment leak requirements indicated a cost savings.
It is expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed rule
would be less than those presented, but it is not possible to quantify the amount.
This is because cost estimates for some kinds of emission points were made assuming
a separate control device would be constructed for each emission point. In reality,
some operators will duct emissions from several of these emission points to a
common control device, upgrade an existing control device, use other less expensive
control technologies, implement pollution prevention technologies, or use emissions
averaging. All of these options would reduce the estimated costs while achieving
the same emission reductions. The effect of such practices on the national costs
could not be estimated because the ability to use any of these practices is highly
site-specific and data were not available to estimate how often the lower cost
compliance practices could be utilized.
D. Economic Impacts
The economic impact analysis assumed that controls would be applied to all
emission points and did not consider the selected applicability criteria. The fifth
year annualized costs used in the economic impact analysis are $359 million per
year. This is about 270 percent greater than the estimated costs for the proposed
rule, which are $134 million per year. Therefore, the economic impacts calculated
in this analysis are greater than the impacts associated with the proposed rule.
Because many SOCMI chemicals are used as raw materials in the production of
other SOCMI chemicals, the economic impact analysis looked at cumulative costs of
control for each of the over 400 SOCMI chemicals listed in Subparts F and H. About
88 percent of the chemicals are estimated to have a cost increase of less than 10
percent; more than 75 percent have cost increases less than 3 percent.
Approximately 12 percent of the chemicals analyzed incur a cost increase of over 10
percent. All but 5 of these chemicals have annual national production of less than
10 million kilograms (11,000 tons) and are therefore low volume chemicals. Two-
thirds of the SOCMI chemicals have production over 10 million kilograms (11,000
tons).
Market analyses for a subset of 20 of the chemicals estimated price increases
from 0.3 percent to 4.8 percent and quantity decreases from 0.1 percent to 4
percent. The market analyses lead to the conclusion that percentage quantity
decreases will be less than the percentage cost increases due to the regulation.
The market analyses indicate that severe disruption of the industry is an unlikely
result. Even for the total control cost scenario analyzed, which has a total cost
of over 50 percent more than the anticipated costs associated with the proposed
standard, significant numbers of business closures are not expected.
The diversity of chemical producers (most sources are involved in the
production of several chemicals) decreases the likelihood of plant closure as a
result of the regulation. A more likely consequence of the regulation is a change
from a chemical manufacturing process with a higher cumulative control cost to a
process with a lower control cost.
The impact for the low volume chemicals is the most uncertain. The cost
estimates for these chemicals involve more uncertainty and, in many cases, industry
profile information specific to the manufacturers of these chemicals was not
available. Many of the low volume chemicals can be considered specialty chemicals.
Generally, there is a lack of viable substitutes for specialty chemicals. In
addition, the cost of specialty chemicals is usually only a small portion of the
cost of the final good made with the specialty chemical. For these two reasons, a
price increase for a specialty chemical is less likely to lead to a business
closure or a production cutback than a price increase for a large volume chemical.
This decreases the likelihood of large quantity impacts or closures.
The RIA addresses the benefits, costs, and economic impact of the regulation.
Because benefits could only be addressed qualitatively, the RIA is not able to
provide guidance as to which regulatory option optimizes net benefits. However, the
RIA does summarize the types of benefits associated with the reduction of HAP's,
VOC's, and particulate matter formed from VOC's. The consideration given to
benefits, cost, and impacts estimates is discussed further in section VII.A.2 of
this notice.
V. Emissions and Impacts Estimation Methodology
A. Overview
This section of the preamble explains the methodology used for estimating
emissions and control impacts for existing sources. Emissions and control impacts
estimates for new sources are derived from the estimates for existing sources. This
section provides a broad overview of the methodology; details are presented in the
BID, Volume 1A, chapter 4.0.
The objective of estimating emissions and control impacts was to compare the
characteristics of alternative standard levels. The following types of impacts were
estimated: emission reductions, control costs, energy impacts, secondary air
pollution impacts such as NO sub x and CO emissions, water pollution, and solid
waste generation.
Although site-specific data on every chemical manufacturing process were not
available, estimates of emissions and control impacts could be derived using a
model emission point approach. The model emission point approach could be used
because the emission mechanisms and applicable control technologies are well
understood for the kinds of emission points regulated in the HON. Furthermore,
these characteristics are similar across SOCMI chemical manufacturing processes.
The impacts analysis involved three steps: (1) Development of a data base
characterizing the SOCMI, (2) development and assignment of model emission points
for each kind of emission point, and (3) calculation of emissions and control
impacts. The characterization of the SOCMI primarily involved identifying the
specific routes, reactants, and process technologies used to produce a chemical and
the corresponding SOCMI chemical manufacturing processes. In addition, information
on existing State and Federal regulations was compiled for each kind of emission
point to determine the baseline control requirements applicable to SOCMI chemical
manufacturing processes.
Model emission points were developed to represent each kind of emission point
in the SOCMI. The models were developed to emphasize those characteristics that
most influence emissions, control costs, energy needs, and secondary environmental
impacts. These models were applied to individual chemical manufacturing processes
in the SOCMI data base using decision rules based on the level of information in
the data base and the specificity of a given model.
The data base and model emission points used to estimate the impacts of the HON
are based on published literature and information that EPA has collected during
other rulemaking efforts including NSPS for air oxidation processes, distillation
operations, reactor processes, volatile organic liquid storage, and equipment
leaks; and NESHAP for vinyl chloride and benzene. Some information on wastewater
collection and treatment operations is based on the document ''Industrial
Wastewater Volatile Organic Compound Emissions-Background Information for BACT/LAER
Determinations'' (EPA 450/3-90-004). Some additional information was obtained on
wastewater operations and transfer loading operations by {pg 62621} requesting it
from the industry under authority of section 114 of the Act. Surveys were not
conducted on the other kinds of emission points because it was judged that they
would not add materially to the analysis.
Baseline emissions, those emissions that would occur in the absence of the HON,
were estimated using calculation algorithms based on known, previously published,
well established methodologies. The baseline emissions estimates were influenced by
the production capacities of the chemical manufacturing processes in the SOCMI data
base and the control requirements in existing Federal and State regulations. It was
assumed that all chemical manufacturing processes would be in compliance with any
applicable existing Federal or State air pollution regulations.
The impacts of the alternative standard levels were estimated using calculation
algorithms previously developed for commonly used control technologies such as
incinerators, flares, condensers, tank improvements, and steam strippers. The
impacts estimates are based on average, representative, or typical emissions and
control requirements for each kind of emission point. Thus, the estimates do not
reflect the impacts that would be observed at any particular chemical manufacturing
process. However, they do provide a reasonable estimate of nationwide emission
reductions and control costs. In addition, these estimates are representative of
the range of impacts that the SOCMI might incur under alternative standards.
More information concerning characterization of the SOCMI, model assignment,
and estimation of impacts can be found in the BID, Volume 1A. Additional
information concerning control technologies and costs can be found in the BID,
Volume 1B. More detailed information concerning model development can be found in
the BID, Volume 1C.
B. Control Technologies for Impacts Estimation
Before estimating the impacts of the proposed standard, EPA considered several
different control technologies including, among others, combustion devices, product
recovery devices, and pollution prevention opportunities. The control technologies
selected for inclusion in the analysis were chosen because they are the most
stringent control technologies that are universally applicable to emission points
in the SOCMI and they can achieve emission reductions at least as stringent as the
MACT floor. While the selected controls were used as the basis of the control
impacts estimates, the proposed standards are written using formats that would
allow use of other control technologies if the equivalent emissions reduction is
achieved.
Listed below are the control technologies selected as the basis for the impacts
calculations for each kind of emission point.
1. Process Vents
Since combustion devices are typically the most efficient control systems and
the only types of control systems that can be applied universally to all process
vents, they are used as the basis for the impacts analysis. Emission reduction of
98 percent is achievable using combustion devices. For halogenated streams, impacts
were calculated based upon the use of a thermal incinerator and acid gas scrubbing.
For nonhalogenated streams, impacts were calculated based upon the use of a thermal
incinerator or a flare, whichever is less expensive in a given situation.
2. Storage
To estimate impacts for storage vessels, it was assumed that storage vessels
will be controlled with internal floating roofs or refrigerated condenser systems
depending on chemical properties of the stored liquid. Emission reduction of 95
percent is achievable through the use of tank improvements (e.g., installation of
internal floating roof with appropriate seals and fittings) or condensers. For
halogenated streams, impacts were calculated based upon the use of refrigerated
condensers. For nonhalogenated streams, impacts were calculated based upon tank
improvements unless the chemical was incompatible with floating roof materials. In
this case, use of a condenser was assumed.
3. Wastewater Operations
Steam strippers have been evaluated as the basis for estimating impacts for
wastewater treatment because steam strippers are efficient treatment systems for
the removal of volatile HAP's from wastewater streams, and are also the most widely
applicable control technology for wastewater streams. This technology achieves
emission reductions of 0 to 99 percent, based on the chemical characteristics
(e.g., strippability) of the wastewater stream. However, 95 to 99 percent reduction
can be achieved for the majority of compounds regulated by the HON. Impacts were
calculated based upon the use of a steam stripper followed by an air emissions
control device. The use of enclosed collection and transport systems to suppress
emissions up to treatment in the steam stripper was also assumed.
4. Transfer Operations
As with process vents, combustion was selected as the most stringent and
universally applicable control technology for control of emissions from transfer
operations. Emission reduction of 98 percent is achievable based upon the use of
capture systems and combustion technologies. For halogenated streams, impacts were
calculated based upon the use of a thermal incinerator and acid gas scrubbing. For
nonhalogenated streams, impacts were calculated based upon the use of a thermal
incinerator or a flare, whichever is less expensive in a given situation.
5. Equipment Leaks
Estimates of impacts for controlling emissions from equipment leaks were based
on the use of LDAR at various action levels specified in the negotiated rule for
equipment leaks. Emission reductions will vary from source to source as the mix of
equipment components differs. Overall, sources are expected to achieve
approximately 88 percent emission reduction.
C. National Emissions and Control Cost Calculations
The calculation of emissions and control impacts for four of the five kinds of
emission points was performed for individual chemical manufacturing processes.
However, for transfer loading operations, emissions and control impacts were
estimated at the source level based on total chemical loading throughput at the
rack since it is industry practice to have source-wide transfer racks rather than a
dedicated rack for each chemical manufacturing process. Some chemical manufacturing
processes were not as well characterized as others. In these cases, information was
extrapolated to derive estimates of emissions, control costs, and other impacts as
described in chapter 4.0 of the BID, Volume 1A. National impacts for existing
sources were determined by aggregating the impacts across all the chemical
manufacturing processes (or facilities in the case of transfer racks).
As previously described in section IV, estimates of emissions and control
impacts for new sources are derived from the results for existing sources, and were
calculated to be 16 percent of the total national impacts in the fifth year.{pg
62623}
VI. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart F
This section describes the rationale for the selection and definition of the
SOCMI source category as well as the proposed policies regarding area sources and
pilot plants. The rationale for the selection and definition of the seven non-SOCMI
processes will be discussed in section VIII, ''Rationale for Provisions in subpart
H.''
A. Selection of Source Categories
1. Selection and Definition of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry
The initial source category list (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), required by
section 112(c) of the Act, identifies source categories for which NESHAP are to be
established. This list includes all major source categories of HAP's known to EPA
at this time, and all area source categories for which a finding of adverse effects
warranting regulation has been made. The source category list identifies the SOCMI
as a source category because it contains major sources emitting at least 10 tons of
any one HAP or more than 25 tons of any combination of HAP's annually.
The SOCMI is a segment of the chemical manufacturing industry that includes the
production of many high-volume organic chemicals. The products of SOCMI are derived
from approximately 10 petrochemical feedstocks. Of the hundreds of organic
chemicals that are produced by the SOCMI, some are final products and some are the
feedstocks for production of other non-SOCMI chemicals or synthetic products such
as plastics, fibers, surfactants, pharmaceuticals, synthetic rubber, dyes, and
pesticides. Production of such non-SOCMI end products is not considered to be part
of SOCMI production and, as a result, the proposed standards would not apply to
downstream synthetic products industries, such as rubber production or polymers
production, that use chemicals produced by SOCMI processes.
For this rule, the EPA has defined the source category as consisting of
chemical manufacturing processes that produce one or more of the 396 chemicals
listed in Sec. 63.105 of subpart G, or one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec.
63.184 of subpart H. The production of these chemicals is believed to involve
emissions of organic HAP's. These chemicals were identified from the literature
describing SOCMI production processes, reactants, and products. A chemical was
listed if organic HAP's could be used as reactants or produced in the manufacture
of the listed chemical. However, EPA recognizes that chemicals on the list can be
produced by processes that do not use an organic HAP as a reactant. In such cases,
even if the chemical is on the list, those processes producing the chemical that do
not use an organic HAP as a reactant or produce a HAP are not considered to be
included in the source category.
In previous rules for SOCMI, EPA considered by-products, co-products, and
intermediates to be products of a process. In implementation of these existing
rules, there has been confusion over the meaning of the terms ''product'' and ''to
produce'' and the correct way to decide whether a source ''produces'' a listed
chemical and is subject to the standard. This confusion arises because of the
complexity and diversity of SOCMI and the highly integrated nature of the chemical
industry. Since the operations that would be regulated in the HON can also be part
of an integrated group of operations dedicated to the production of non- SOCMI
products such as pesticides or polymers, the industry is concerned that companies
would have difficulty determining which standards apply to which process.
Regulatory agencies have also found it difficult to determine applicability.
Most of the organic chemical manufacturing processes that would be subject to
the proposed standards for SOCMI are classified in the four-digit SIC codes 2865,
Cyclic Organic Crudes and Intermediates and Organic Dyes and Pigments, and 2869,
Industrial Organic Chemicals Not Elsewhere Classified. However, not all processes
classified in these two SIC codes would be subject to the proposed rule.
Because of this confusion, a different approach to defining applicability of
this rule was developed. For the HON, applicability will be based on the primary
product that is produced by a process or, where there is no primary product, on the
intended purpose of the process. By- products, co-products, and isolated
intermediates would not be considered in determining applicability since these were
considered in development of the list of chemical products.
The proposed standard would apply to air oxidation, reactor, and distillation
processes that make as a product any of the listed 396 SOCMI chemicals. For the
purposes of this rule, EPA does not consider wastes to be products. Also,
impurities or trace contaminants that are coincidentally processed and are not
isolated are not considered to be a product.
This decisionmaking process, shown in Figures 1a and 1b, is based on the
concept that applicability should be determined based on the primary product or
purpose of the process, and is determined only once for each process. The primary
product would be determined by the product that represents the largest percentage
of the total mass produced by the process. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
Figure 1a identifies a series of logic tests that determine if the chemical
manufacturing process would be subject to this proposed rule. Figure 1b addresses
situations where a process produces two or more chemicals that are not predominant.
It is expected that in the vast majority of cases, the applicability can be
determined using the decisionmaking process in Figure 1a. A comparison of this new
approach with the approach used in previous rules for SOCMI sources found that both
approaches identify the same set of processes as being subject to this rule.
A chemical manufacturing process is the group of equipment associated with air
oxidation processes, reactor processes, and distillation operations that convert
raw materials into one or more products. The chemical manufacturing process may
include storage tanks, process equipment, transfer operations, and waste treatment
predominantly used in the production of products.
Examples of chemical manufacturing processes that would be subject to the
proposed standard are:
1. A process that produces ethylbenzene as the product;
2. A process that produces phenol or acetone as the product from cumene;
3. A chemical manufacturing process that produces methylmethacrylate by
purification of an impure feedstock received from another plant site (a
distillation operation on a polymer unit would not be considered a chemical
manufacturing process);
4. A chemical manufacturing process that produces methanol as the intended
product; or
5. A chemical manufacturing process that produces chloroform as the intended
product.
Examples of processes that would not be considered subject to the proposed
standard are:
1. A chemical manufacturing process that produces divinylbenzene as the
predominant product and creates a benzene- containing waste that is sent to a
benzene production process (the process producing benzene obviously would be
subject to the proposed standard); or
2. A polymer process that produces polyethylene terephthalate that also
generates an impure methanol stream (the polyethylene terephthalate process will be
covered by the MACT standard for polymers and resins production).
The EPA selected the proposed approach for defining applicability because it is
consistent with previous standards for this industry and the supporting information
for the proposed standard. Specifically, the use of a set of specific chemicals to
define the category is consistent with standards established for SOCMI under
Section 111 of the Act. The definition of ''product'' being proposed for this
standard reflects the assumptions used in the identification of the list of 396
SOCMI chemicals and the need for consistency with the benzene waste NESHAP, (40 CFR
Part 61, Subpart FF) and future Section 112 standards for wastes. The definition of
product was modified from the definition used in the NSPS for SOCMI air oxidation,
reactor, and distillation processes to improve implementation of this rule. In
addition, the definition was modified to recognize that wastes are sold and that
waste materials may be added to other processes for purposes of waste minimization
and treatment. These modifications were made to encourage waste minimization and to
ensure consistency in what is considered a waste among Section 112 standards.
The proposed standard also includes provisions that specifically exclude
certain industrial activities from the standard. These provisions were added to
prevent any ambiguity in the applicability of the standard. For example, petroleum
refinery processes are not part of the SOCMI source category and are therefore not
subject to this standard. Many refinery processes make multiple-chemical mixtures
for use as fuels. These processes would not be covered by the HON even if one of
the 396 chemicals is present in the mixture because EPA plans to regulate refinery
processes under a separate MACT standard. For the same reason, refinery processes
used to produce feedstocks that are supplied to SOCMI chemical manufacturing
processes are not within the definition of SOCMI and are not subject to the HON.
However, a SOCMI chemical manufacturing process that is located at a refinery and
produces one or more of the 396 chemicals as a single chemical product (rather than
a mixture) would be considered a SOCMI process and would be subject to the HON.
Ethylene processes are also not considered to be part of the SOCMI source
category. Ethylene processes, like refinery operations, generate mixed streams that
provide the raw materials for subsequent chemical manufacturing processes. The
chemical manufacturing processes that produce butadiene and benzene from these
ethylene streams would be subject to the proposed rule. Ethylene processes will be
evaluated under a separate MACT standard.
Solvent reclamation units operated at hazardous waste TSDF facilities requiring
a permit under subtitle C that are separate entities and not part of a SOCMI
chemical manufacturing process are not covered by the proposed HON. Instead, these
facilities will be considered for regulation under separate section 112 standards.
Similarly, emission points that are typically associated with SOCMI processes
but are not covered by the HON will be considered for regulation in separate
standards. For example, separate MACT standards are planned for industrial cooling
towers and boilers.
2. Exclusion of Area Sources
A SOCMI chemical manufacturing process would be subject to the proposed
standard only if it is part of a major source. As noted earlier in this notice, a
major source is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within
a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, more than 10 tons per year of any HAP or more than 25 tons
per year of total HAP. In implementation of other provisions of the Act, the EPA
has defined ''potential to emit'' as the maximum capacity of a stationary source to
emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or
operational limitation on the capacity to emit includes any air pollution control
equipment and restrictions on operations or on the amount of material processed, if
such limitation is federally enforceable (see 40 CFR 52.21(4)). For the purpose of
the proposed rule, the EPA considers ''potential to emit'' to be based on the same
criteria. All operations at the site that emit or have the potential to emit would
be considered when determining whether the source is major.
Based on the information available on the SOCMI and emission estimates
developed for this standard, the EPA does not believe that it would be feasible for
any of the identified plant sites to be area sources. Consequently, the EPA has no
information that can be used to determine whether area sources in the SOCMI source
category would present a threat of adverse effects to human health or to the
environment. While EPA is aware that some owners of SOCMI facilities believe there
are area sources in the industry, EPA has no information regarding the basis for
this belief.
The EPA is requesting comment on whether there are any area sources in the
SOCMI and if there are, whether the standard should apply to them. Information is
requested on the nature of these sources; their chemical manufacturing processes;
their potential {pg 62627} health effects; as well as estimates of the number,
location, and emissions.
3. Research and Development Facilities
The proposed standard would not apply to research and development facilities,
such as laboratories and pilot plants, regardless of whether the facilities are
located on the same site as a commercial chemical manufacturing process. Research
and development facilities cover a wide range of operations and sizes from bench-
top operations to small scale operating units. These facilities are operated under
a very wide and changing variety of piping configurations, chemicals, chemical
concentrations, and equipment to generate information that can be used to improve
existing operations or to develop new products or design criteria for new
production plants. Due to their very nature, there are frequent changes in the
operations of research and development facilities.
Although EPA has extensive experience with the SOCMI, EPA has limited
information regarding operations of research and development facilities and the
appropriate controls for these facilities. In particular, EPA is presently
uncertain how to structure a standard for research and development facilities to
avoid imposing extremely burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The
EPA concluded, therefore, that it would be appropriate to establish a separate
source category covering research and development facilities to ensure equitable
treatment. Standards for such facilities may be developed at a later date.
B. Selection of Emission Points
The proposed standard applies to all emission points in organic HAP emitting
SOCMI chemical manufacturing processes that are part of a major source. The bulk of
HAP's from SOCMI processes can be characterized as being emitted from five kinds of
emission points: Process vents from reactor processes, air oxidation processes, and
distillation operations; storage vessels that store reactants or products; transfer
racks used to load products into tank trucks or railcars; wastewater streams; and
equipment leaks.
1. Process Vents
Process vents are typically associated with product recovery systems in a
chemical manufacturing process. Process vent emissions result primarily from the
venting of VOC and HAP-containing inert gases and evacuation of equipment for
vacuum processing. For this proposed standard, EPA has divided process vents into
continuous and batch processes. The proposed provisions for vents would only apply
to continuous process vents because the data upon which the standard is based,
including the cost and control device performance, assume a continuous or near-
continuous mode of operation. The EPA is considering developing a separate standard
for process vents associated with batch processes.
The process vent provisions apply to the point at which emissions are vented to
the atmosphere. Emissions may be vented directly to the atmosphere, or one or more
process vents streams may be directed through a recovery device before emissions
are released to the atmosphere. A Group 1 process vent is a vent with a flow rate
of 0.005 scm/min or greater, an organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or greater,
and a TRE index value less than or equal to 1. Vents that do not meet these
applicability criteria are Group 2 vents and are not required to apply additional
controls. If a recovery device is present, the outlet of the final recovery device
is where the vent stream tests are performed to determine whether it is a Group 1
or a Group 2 vent. Additional rationale for this method of defining process vents
and where process vent emissions are measured is presented in the proposal preamble
to the SOCMI reactors NSPS (55 FR 26953, June 29, 1990).
Process vent streams that contain 0.005 weight-percent organic HAP or less are
not regulated under the HON because it would be impractical to impose requirements
for such small streams.
2. Storage Vessels
The proposed provisions for storage vessels apply to each individual vessel
storing one or more liquids that are organic HAP's because the point of emissions
to the atmosphere is typically the individual vessel, and control technologies such
as tank improvements apply to each individual storage vessel rather than to a group
of vessels. Vessels that store liquids containing organic HAP's as impurities are
not subject to the HON. Such liquids contain only trace levels of organic HAP's and
no significant HAP emission reductions would be achieved by controlling them. An
impurity is produced coincidentally with another chemical substance and is
processed, used, or distributed with it.
The storage vessel provisions would not apply to storage vessels permanently
attached to motor vehicles such as trucks or railcars. The storage vessel
provisions also do not apply to pressurized vessels designed to operate in excess
of 204.9 kPa (29.7 psia) because such vessels operate under pressure and have no
measurable emissions to the atmosphere.
3. Transfer Operations
The provisions of Subpart G are applicable to each rack, leg, or arm of the
rack at which organic HAP liquids are loaded. This selection was made because there
may be multiple points of release for the emissions from transfer operations. In
addition, HAP emissions may pass through the loading arm back into the rack and be
discharged to the atmosphere through a different arm. Emissions of HAP's may also
be released directly to the atmosphere from the vehicle being loaded. To ensure
that vapors are collected and transferred to a control device, the standard
requires that organic HAP be loaded only into DOT certified or vapor tight tank
trucks and railcars.
The transfer of liquids containing organic HAP's as impurities is not regulated
by the HON. Such liquids contain only trace levels of organic HAP's and no
significant HAP emission reductions would be achieved by controlling them. For
purposes of the HON transfer operations provisions, an impurity is produced
coincidentally with another chemical substance and is processed, used, or
distributed with it.
4. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operations
In the manufacture of many chemicals, wastewater streams containing organic HAP
compounds are generated. These organic compounds can volatilize and be emitted to
the atmosphere if the wastewater is managed in an open system or vented to the
atmosphere. There are three categories of HAP- containing wastewaters produced at
SOCMI facilities: (1) Process wastewaters; (2) maintenance wastewaters; and (3)
water contaminated through leaks from heat exchangers and condensers. Because each
category of wastewater is generated in a different way, control of emissions also
differs. Recognizing that different approaches are needed to reduce the burden of
control and ensure good practices for control of emissions from wastewater, EPA has
developed separate provisions for each of the three categories.
Wastewaters generated during maintenance turnaround and routine maintenance
activities would have to be properly managed to minimize air emissions. As part of
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for the source, the owner or operator
would {pg 62628} have to specify procedures that will be followed during
maintenance turnarounds to ensure that wastewaters are collected, treated, and
managed in a manner that minimizes emissions to the atmosphere. If the procedures
in the plan are followed during the maintenance turnaround, the owner or operator
only needs to document that the procedures specified in the plan were followed. The
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would also have to include a description of
the procedures that would be followed to properly manage process fluids drained
from equipment during routine maintenance activities.
The proposed provisions for control of emissions from contaminated cooling
water are based on a leak detection and repair program to minimize leakage of
process fluids into cooling water. The intent of these provisions is to ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the process. The leak detection and repair
provisions require monitoring of cooling systems for significant increases in HAP
content in the cooling water. If concentration increases above the action level are
detected, then the leaking equipment would have to be repaired or by-passed within
a specific time period. The EPA is requesting comments and data on what is an
appropriate action level and what time period should be allowed for repairs. The
proposed provisions present a range of possible values for action levels and time
periods for repairs.
The proposed provisions for process wastewater apply to wastewaters which,
during manufacturing or processing, come into direct contact with or result from
the production of process fluids. Applicability of the proposed provisions is
determined at the point of generation of the wastewater. (The point of generation
is the location where the wastewater leaves the process equipment and enters waste
management units.) This point was selected because:
(1) At this point, the production process ends and the wastewater collection
system begins;
(2) This is the point where the concentration of organics is highest, therefore
allowing judgment to be made regarding the need for control or monitoring of
downstream treatment processes; and
(3) After this point, there is a potential for emissions from wastewater
streams to occur.
5. Equipment Leaks
The term equipment leaks refers to the loss of process fluid through the
sealing mechanism separating the process from the atmosphere. Equipment that can
leak process fluid includes the valves, pumps, connectors, compressors, agitators,
pressure relief devices, sampling connection system, open-ended lines or valves,
product accumulator vessels, and instrumentation systems that are associated with
all operations of the chemical production process. Based on the negotiated
agreement, equipment that only contacts or contains process materials that are less
than 5 percent HAP or are operated in HAP service for 300 hrs/yr or less is not
subject to subpart H.
VII. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart G
A. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
The Act specifies that EPA, in determining the MACT level of control for
sources regulated under section 112, must select emission control requirements that
are at least as stringent as, or more stringent than, the emission control level
identified as the floor. As a result, EPA began the process of selecting control
requirements for the HON by determining the floor for the sources that would be
subject to the HON. Once the floor was established for both new and existing
sources, EPA considered additional control for each kind of emission point and the
source as a whole taking into consideration the criteria enumerated in section
112(d) of the Act: Cost of achieving such reductions, any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
This section of the preamble describes the process EPA used to determine the
floors for new and existing sources, the criteria EPA used to evaluate additional
control requirements and the outcome of EPA's floor analysis and control selection
process for each kind of emission point in the source. Section V of this preamble
gives an overview of the data base used in this process, and memoranda in the
docket provide a detailed description of the methodology and data used to derive
the floors for new and existing sources.
1. Overview of the Process and Factors Considered
For SOCMI, what distinguishes a well-controlled facility is not only the type
of control equipment used, but also the number of emission points that are
controlled. Facilities differ in the number, combination, and design of their
chemical manufacturing processes; the production capacities of their processes; the
particular chemicals manufactured; and the control equipment used. Consequently,
although SOCMI consists of similar kinds of emission points and the same controls
are applicable, actual emissions and characteristics of SOCMI facilities vary
widely from plant site to plant site. Due to this diversity, no ''typical'' source
could be identified that would be representative across the source category. This
diversity affected the approach used to define the floor for existing and new
sources. Specifically, this diversity precluded the use of mass emission rate as a
measure of performance since a mass rate based on an ''average'' source could
require no control at some sources and be unachievable at other sources. As with
previous rules for the SOCMI category, the EPA used the weight percent reduction
achieved by the control device as the most appropriate measure of best performing
technology (55 FR 26963). These characteristics of the controlled emission points
and the control efficiencies for each kind of emission point were then combined to
develop the source-wide floor. This process can be expected to result in a floor
determination that is at least as stringent as that which would have been generated
with actual source-wide data.
The information EPA used in determining the source-wide floor consisted of the
estimates of the number and characteristics of the model emission points, the
emission control requirements currently in place for each point based on
information available to EPA, and the expected control efficiencies for the control
technology. As discussed earlier in this notice, EPA used data on the control
requirements in existing State and Federal regulations to identify those emission
points that must be controlled in the absence of this rule and to identify the
required controls. (The regulations were used as a surrogate for actual data on the
control levels achieved in practice. In this analysis, EPA assumed all facilities
would be in compliance with all applicable regulations.)
In the analysis of existing regulations, EPA found that where State and Federal
rules require controls on emission points, they typically require use of the most
effective control technologies (or performance levels) that are generally
applicable. These control technologies are the same as the controls required in
previous NSPS standards for the SOCMI and are widely accepted by the industry and
regulatory agencies as technologies appropriate as bases for emission standards.
These control technologies have been designated as the ''reference {pg 62629}
control technologies'' for the purpose of the rule being proposed today.
The reference control technologies (and their performance levels) specified in
the proposed rule reflect information and knowledge of SOCMI that EPA has been
developing since 1976. Through development of standards under section 111 and
section 112 for SOCMI, EPA has developed extensive knowledge of the range of
demonstrated control technologies applicable to SOCMI and the expected performance
of these technologies. The selected technologies identified as the basis for the
reference control requirements are:
-98 percent combustion control for process vents and transfer operations. For
halogenated streams, 98 percent control is achieved using a thermal incinerator,
boiler, or process heater, plus acid gas scrubbing. For nonhalogenated streams, 98
percent control is achieved using either a thermal incinerator, a flare, or a
boiler or process heater.
-95 to 98 percent volatile organic HAP control of wastewater (for highly volatile
chemicals) or control to a target concentration using a controlled steam stripper
or other treatment technology. The actual control depends on individual chemical
properties.
-Approximately 95 percent control of storage tanks through tank modifications or
application of a vapor recovery system and control device. The actual efficiency
depends on the individual chemical properties.
The above control technologies and work practices were selected as the
technological basis for the HON since EPA is not aware of any demonstrated control
technologies and operations that would perform with higher efficiencies and also be
universally applicable to SOCMI. In many cases, application of the reference
control technology is already required by either an existing State or Federal
regulation.
To determine the source-wide floor for existing sources, EPA next examined the
supporting information to identify the characteristics of the top 12 percent of the
source category that applied the reference control technology to the smallest
emission points. This analysis was done for each kind of emission point. The
characteristics used to identify groups of emission points were physical parameters
such as flow rate, HAP concentration, and vapor pressure. All the identified groups
of emission points controlled by the reference control technology were then
combined to define the weighted average percent reduction achieved by these best
performing 12 percent of the sources. The results of this analysis are described in
the next section as part of the discussion of specific considerations for each kind
of emission point.
A similar method was used to determine the source- wide floor for new sources.
For each kind of emission point, the characteristics of the smallest emission point
controlled by the reference control technology were identified as the means for
determining the best controlled similar source. Again, the source- wide floor was
determined by the combination of control levels for all emission points.
Once the floors were established, EPA considered whether to establish a
standard that requires an emission reduction that is more stringent than the floor.
In selecting the standard, EPA considered the magnitude of the reduction in HAP
emissions, the cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, non-air quality health
impacts, and other environmental impacts. The objective in this consideration is to
achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction that does not result in
unreasonable economic or other impacts. As with the floors, EPA determined the
standard for the source by combining selected control levels for each kind of
emission point. The next section presents the additional control levels considered
for each kind of emission point and the basis for the selected level.
2. Alternative Control Levels and Selection of Requirements
In the selection of the proposed standard, the EPA considered the merits of
alternative control levels for individual emission points as well as the overall
impacts of the group of decisions in light of the statutory criteria. In the first
step of the process, regulatory alternatives were developed for each kind of
emission point. These alternatives differed only in the number of emission points
that would be controlled by the reference control technology.
Regulatory alternatives were developed using information for the chemical
processes that could be characterized sufficiently to permit assignment of model
emission points. Approximately 97 percent of the nationwide chemical production
capacity is associated with these well characterized processes. The emission
reduction and control cost estimates for the regulatory alternatives are summarized
in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5.- Control Alternatives for Existing Sources Subject to
Subpart G sup a
Kinds of emission points sup b Process vents
Control Option 1
Emission reduction mg/yr 232,000
Percent emission reduction 93
Cost $1,000/yr 51,000
Avg. $/mg 220
Inc. $/mg
Control Option *2
Emission reduction mg/yr 234,000
Percent emission reduction 93
Cost $1,000/yr 54,000
Avg. $/mg 230
Inc. $/mg 1,800
Control Option 3
Emission reduction mg/yr 235,000
Percent emission reduction 94
Cost $1,000/yr 58,000
Avg. $/mg 250
Inc. $/mg 2,500
Control Option 4
Emission reduction mg/yr 236,000
Percent emission reduction 94
Cost $1,000/yr 62,000
Avg. $/mg 260
Inc. $/mg 3,900
Control Option 5
Emission reduction mg/yr 238,000
Percent emission reduction 95
Cost $1,000/yr 93,000
Avg. $/mg 390
Inc. $/mg 22,000
Kinds of emission points sup b Wastewater
Control Option 0
Emission reduction mg/yr 0
Percent emission reduction 0
Cost $1,000/yr 0
Avg. $/mg 0
Inc. $/mg
Control Option *1
Emission reduction mg/yr 82,100
Percent emission reduction 84
Cost $1,000/yr 24,000
Avg. $/mg 290
Inc. $/mg 290
Control Option 2
Emission reduction mg/yr 82,800
Percent emission reduction 85
Cost $1,000/yr 26,000
Avg. $/mg 310
Inc. $/mg 2,600
Control Option 3
Emission reduction mg/yr 85,700
Percent emission reduction 88
Cost $1,000/yr 38,000
Avg. $/mg 440
Inc. $/mg 4,200
Control Option 4
Emission reduction mg/yr 88,900
Percent emission reduction 91
Cost $1,000/yr 104,000
Avg. $/mg 1,200
Inc. $/mg 21,000
Kinds of emission points sup b Transfer
Control Option *1
Emission reduction mg/yr 360
Percent emission reduction 65
Cost $1,000/yr 3,100
Avg. $/mg 8,700
Inc. $/mg
Control Option 2
Emission reduction mg/yr 420
Percent emission reduction 77
Cost $1,000/yr 6,500
Avg. $/mg 15,000
Inc. $/mg 54,000
Kinds of emission points sup b Storage:
Control Option *1
Emission reduction mg/yr 0
Percent emission reduction 0
Cost $1,000/yr 0
Avg. $/mg 0
Inc. $/mg
Kinds of emission points sup b Small sup c
Control Option 2
Emission reduction mg/yr 360
Percent emission reduction 95
Cost $1,000/yr 19,000
Avg. $/mg 53,000
Inc. $/mg 53,000
Kinds of emission points sup b Storage:
Control Option *1
Emission reduction mg/yr 330
Percent emission reduction 70
Cost $1,000/yr 2,100
Avg. $/mg 6,500
Inc. $/mg
Kinds of emission points sup b Medium sup d
Control Option 2
Emission reduction mg/yr 410
Percent emission reduction 88
Cost $1,000/yr 5,700
Avg. $/mg 14,000
Inc. $/mg 43,000
Kinds of emission points sup b Storage:
Control Option 1
Emission reduction mg/yr 1,700
Percent emission reduction 17
Cost $1,000/yr 4,000
Avg. $/mg 2,400
Inc. $/mg
Kinds of emission points sup b Large sup e
Control Option *2
Emission reduction mg/yr 4,800
Percent emission reduction 48
Cost $1,000/yr 7,300
Avg. $/mg 1,500
Inc. $/mg 1,100
Control Option 3
Emission reduction mg/yr 8,600
Percent emission reduction 87
Cost $1,000/yr 19,000
Avg. $/mg 2,100
Inc. $/mg 2,900
Kinds of emission points sup b Total sup f
Floor sup g
Control Option
Emission reduction mg/yr 234,000
Percent emission reduction 65
Cost $1,000/yr 60,000
Avg. $/mg 260
Inc. $/mg
Proposed option
Control Option
Emission reduction mg/yr 322,000
Percent emission reduction 89
Cost $1,000/yr 91,000
Avg. $/mg 280
Inc. $/mg 350
Total control
Control Option
Emission reduction mg/yr 337,000
Percent emission reduction 94
Cost $1,000/yr 247,000
Avg. $/mg 730
Inc. $/mg 10,000
sup a The impacts in this table are based on well characterized
chemical manufacturing processes and were estimated using the
model emission point approach described in Section V of this
notice.
sup b Only the impacts for emission points subject to Subpart G
are described. Equipment leaks are also part of a SOCMI source
but are subject to Subpart H.
sup c Small denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than or
equal to 38 m fn 3 (10,000 gal), but less than 75 m fn 3
(20,000 gal).
sup d Medium denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than
or equal to 75 m fn 3 (20,000 gal), but less than 151 m fn 3
(40,000 gal).
sup e Large denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than or
equal to 151 m fn 3 (40,000 gal).
sup f These totals do not include control impacts for equipment
leaks. Floor tables are option 1 for each emission point.
Proposed option totals are the option for each emission point.
Total control tables are the last option for each emission point.
sup g The first option for each kind of emission point represents
the floor.
Table 6.- Control Alternatives for New Sources Subject to
Subpart G sup a,b
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Process Vents
Control option *1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 45,000
Percent Emission Reduction 95
Cost $1,000/yr 13,000
Avg. $/Mg 290
Inc. $/Mg
Control option 2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 45,000
Percent Emission Reduction 95
Cost $1,000/yr 18,000
Avg. $/Mg 390
Inc. $/Mg 47,000
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Wastewater
Control option 1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 12,900
Percent Emission Reduction 70
Cost $1,000/yr 5,100
Avg. $/Mg 400
Inc. $/Mg
Control option *2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 15,900
Percent Emission Reduction 86
Cost $1,000/yr 6,900
Avg. $/Mg 430
Inc. $/Mg 600
Control option 3
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 16,900
Percent Emission Reduction 91
Cost $1,000/yr 19,800
Avg. $/Mg 1,200
Inc. $/Mg 13,000
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Transfer
Control option *1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 68
Percent Emission Reduction 65
Cost $1,000/yr 590
Avg. $/Mg 8,700
Inc. $/Mg
Control option 2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 80
Percent Emission Reduction 77
Cost $1,000/yr 1,200
Avg. $/Mg 15,000
Inc. $/Mg 54,000
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Storage:
Control option *1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 61
Percent Emission Reduction 85
Cost $1,000/yr 1,500
Avg. $/Mg 24,000
Inc. $/Mg
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Small sup d
Control option 2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 68
Percent Emission Reduction 94
Cost $1,000/yr 3,600
Avg. $/Mg 53,000
Inc. $/Mg 304,000
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Storage:
Control option *1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 62
Percent Emission Reduction 70
Cost $1,000/yr 400
Avg. $/Mg 6,400
Inc. $/Mg
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Medium sup e
Control option 2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 78
Percent Emission Reduction 88
Cost $1,000/yr 1,000
Avg. $/Mg 14,000
Inc. $/Mg 42,000
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Storage:
Control option 1
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 0
Percent Emission Reduction 0
Cost $1,000/yr 0
Avg. $/Mg 0
Inc. $/Mg
Kinds of Emission Points sup c Large sup f
Control option *2
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 1,100
Percent Emission Reduction 81
Cost $1,000/yr 800
Avg. $/Mg 730
Inc. $/Mg 730
Control option 3
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 1,100
Percent Emission Reduction 81
Cost $1,000/yr 1,000
Avg. $/Mg 950
Inc. $/Mg 117,000
Total sup g
Floor sup h
Control option
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 58,000
Percent Emission Reduction 86
Cost $1,000/yr 21,000
Avg. $/Mg 350
Inc. $/Mg
Proposed Option
Control option
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 62,000
Percent Emission Reduction 92
Cost $1,000/yr 23,000
Avg. $/Mg 370
Inc. $/Mg 630
Total Control
Control option
Emission Reduction Mg/yr 63,000
Percent Emission Reduction 93
Cost $1,000/yr 45,000
Avg. $/Mg 710
Inc. $/Mg 21,000
sup a The impacts in this table are based on well characterized
chemical manufacturing processes and were estimated using the
model emission point approach described in Section V of this
notice.
sup b Estimated control impacts for fifth year after
promulgation of the HON based on an assumed industry growth of
3.5 percent each year.
sup c Only the impacts for emission points subject to Subpart G
are described. Equipment leaks are also part of a SOCMI source
but are subject to Subpart H.
sup d Small denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than or
equal to 38 m fn 3 (10,000 gal), but less than 75 m fn 3
(20,000 gal).
sup e Medium denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than
or equal to 75 m fn 3 (20,000 gal), but less than 151 m fn 3
(40,000 gal).
sup f Large denotes storage vessels with capacity greater than or
equal to 151 m fn 3 (40,000 gal).
sup g These totals do not include control impacts for equipment
leaks.
Floor tables are option 1 for each emission point.
Proposed option totals are the option for each emission point.
Total control tables are the last option for each emission point.
sup h The first option for each kind of emission point represents
the floor.
Table 5 provides the control costs and emission reductions associated with
alternative control levels considered for existing sources in the source category.
Table 6 presents the same information for the alternative control levels considered
for new sources in the source category. The estimates presented in Tables 5 and 6
differ from the estimates summarized in section IV of this notice because those
earlier estimates include an extrapolation to account for processes that could not
be modeled.
In selection of the proposed standard, the EPA considered: (1) Magnitude of the
emission reduction; (2) cost of the emission reduction; (3) economic impacts and
feasibility; (4) consistency with previous decisions; (5) other non-air quality
health and environmental impacts; and (6) energy requirements. Based on
consideration of these factors, the EPA selected a standard that would ensure a
significant reduction in HAP emissions from the SOCMI. The EPA's analysis estimates
that the selected standard would reduce HAP emissions from the four kinds of
emission points by 322,000 Mg/yr (355,000 tons/yr) from existing sources and 62,000
Mg/yr (68,000 tons/yr) from new sources in the fifth year of the standard. This
represents an emission reduction of about 89 percent for existing sources (92
percent for new sources) in comparison to the emissions that would have occurred
without the standard. For the group of well characterized sources, the total
nationwide annual cost associated with this emission reduction is estimated to be
about $114 million/yr-$91 million/yr of this cost is from control of existing
sources and $23 million/yr is from control of new sources. (As stated above, these
estimates represent processes sufficiently well characterized to assign models.
These estimates differ from the national numbers presented in section IV which
include an extrapolation to account for processes that could not be modeled.)
The nationwide annual cost of this rule is estimated to be $182 million. Of
this total cost, about $48 millon/yr results from the costs of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions.
a. Process vents: Existing sources. The determination of the best 12 percent of
the process vents was based on consideration of the various parameters that affect
emission rates (flow rate, HAP concentration, net heating value, and corrosion
properties). These parameters are highly variable from one process to another
depending on the constituents of the vent stream. Therefore, it is not appropriate
to define best performing in terms of any single parameter or even any specific
combination of them since the combination would be different from one process to
another. A surrogate measure for these parameters that influence whether or not a
vent stream is controlled and the specific control {pg 62631} technology applied is
cost effectiveness. Cost- effectiveness values can be used to reflect all possible
combinations of these parameters and the cost of controlling streams with the
reference control technology (98 percent efficient combustion control). Use of the
single criterion of cost effectiveness would result in a more understandable and
enforceable rule.
The procedure used to define the groups of process vents was to rank all
process vents in the data base from highest to lowest cost-effectiveness of control
and to determine the point where less than 12 percent of the vents were controlled.
This analysis showed that the dividing line between the groups occurred at a cost
effectiveness of $1,500/Mg ($1,360/ton). Of the process vents with cost
effectiveness values of less than $1,500/Mg, 44 percent were controlled with the 98
percent efficient combustion devices. Thus, all process vents with cost
effectiveness of $1,500/Mg and lower have 98 percent control efficiency in the
determination of the source-wide floor.
In selection of the proposed standard for existing sources, EPA believes that a
level of emission reduction from process vents more stringent than the level
associated with the floor is achievable. The EPA is proposing to require the
control level in Option 2, which has an incremental cost-effectiveness of $1,800/Mg
($1,630/ton) and would require control of vents that have TRE cost-effectiveness
values of up to $2,000/Mg ($1,800/ton). Although EPA is proposing this specific
control level, EPA is requesting comment on Options 1 through 4. These options
would require control of vents with TRE cost-effectiveness values of up to
$1,500/Mg ($1,360/ton) in Option 1 (the floor component); vents with TRE cost-
effectiveness values of up to $3,000/Mg ($2,720/ton) in Option 3; and vents with
TRE cost-effectiveness values of up to $5,000/Mg ($4,540/ton) in Option 4. The EPA
anticipates that in consideration of the final decision EPA will give more weight
to Options 1 through 3. The Option 2 control level was selected in the proposed
rule based on considerations specific to the SOCMI category and would not
necessarily be appropriate for other source categories. Therefore, it should not be
viewed as a precedent for decisions on other standards. The EPA recognizes that
there are differing views regarding the appropriate criteria for determining the
control level. Consequently, EPA is requesting comments on the appropriateness of
particular control choices within the range of options described above and asks
that commenters provide supporting rationale for their preferences.
The EPA selected the proposed control level considering the emission reduction
achieved by the alternative control options and considering the criteria enumerated
in section 112(d) of the Act: The cost of achieving such emission reduction; any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts; and energy requirements. As a
matter of general policy in decisions to select control levels above the floor, EPA
believes that the cost- effectiveness of controls and a comparison of benefits,
both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, and costs are primary considerations. In any
such comparison of costs and benefits, the uncertainties associated with the
benefit and cost estimates should be characterized.
In this proposed rulemaking, however, EPA's ability to do such a comparison was
severely limited by the lack of sufficient data on the characteristics of the
emission sources and the complexity of the SOCMI category. A preliminary assessment
of the benefits of the potential emission reductions was prepared using the
available data. However, because of the data limitations cited above, EPA does not
believe that the analysis provides an adequate basis for decisionmaking. This
analysis has been placed in Docket A- 90-19. The EPA invites comment on this
analysis, its usefulness and defensibility, and requests the submittal of data and
methods that could improve the analysis. The EPA will review any such comments and
data and will, to the extent practicable, evaluate their implications for the risk
assessment prior to the final rule. Despite the difficulty of estimating
quantitative benefits for this rulemaking due to the complexity of the source
category, data limitations, and timing of the rule, EPA remains committed to
evaluating benefits as well as costs associated with decisions to go above the
floor in future MACT standards. The EPA also intends to review cost-effectiveness
of decisions as part of these future rulemakings.
Due to this lack of a benefits assessment, EPA used benchmarks from previous
air toxics regulatory decisions and past air toxics benefits studies as a surrogate
measure for benefits considerations in the decision on the proposed control level.
The information considered consisted of the Benzene NESHAP decisions (49 FR 23498,
54 FR 38044, and 55 FR 8292) and the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP (41 FR 46560). For
example, one decision that reflected consideration of balancing emission reductions
against costs was the benzene storage standard (55 FR 38044). In that decision, the
cost- effectiveness of the selected option was estimated to range from $128/Mg to
$909/Mg ($116/ton to $824/ton) in 1982 dollars ($160/Mg to $1,100/Mg $145/ton to
$1,000/ton in 1989 dollars).
Although the cost-effectiveness measures from past decisions were considered in
selection of the proposed control level, EPA also considered the differences
between this proposed rule and the earlier decisions on benzene and vinyl chloride.
This rule applies to emissions of 112 HAP's while the earlier rules only addressed
cancer health effects of a single HAP (i.e., benzene or vinyl chloride). Because of
the noncancer health effects associated with many of the 112 HAP's, there are
questions about the degree to which past decisions may serve as a guide to this
proposal. The EPA is not able at this time to quantify the noncancer health effects
so that they can be combined with the cancer health effects for the HON.
Additional factors were considered in the selection of the proposed control
level. These factors include the magnitude of the emission reduction, the cost of
this reduction, consistency with past decisions, location of facilities near
population centers, and other non-air quality environmental benefits from the
control. The consideration of these factors is summarized below.
Existing source process vents are the single largest contributor of HAP
emissions from the SOCMI source category. The additional emission reduction beyond
that achieved at the floor that would result from the proposed control level is
about 1,600 Mg/yr (1,800 tons/yr), which represents 0.7 percent of the emission
reduction achieved at the floor. This additional control has a cost effectiveness
of $1,800/Mg ($1,630/ton) of HAP and with a TRE equivalent to a cost- effectiveness
of $2,000/Mg ($1,800/ton). The cost of this additional control (along with the cost
of the other proposed control requirements) is estimated to result in less than a 3
percent price increase for SOCMI chemicals. The EPA requests comments on whether
the costs of the selected control requirements are reasonable and asks that the
commenters provide supportive rationale for their judgments on the costs.
The EPA is requesting comment on a range of control options because of the
previously discussed uncertainties in the measure of the benefits of control and
because of the uncertainties in the cost that would actually be experienced.
Because of the conservative assumptions used to develop the control {pg 62632}
costs and the TRE format of the vent provisions, it is unlikely that any source
would actually incur costs at the TRE level (the criterion for defining vents that
must apply control) that is equivalent to $2,000/Mg ($1,800/ton). The cost analysis
used in developing the supporting information for this standard was based on use of
a dedicated control device for each vent. Actual costs would be lower where one
device could be used to control emissions from several vents. The cost of control
would also be lower in those cases where it is feasible to use a boiler or process
heater instead of an incinerator. Finally, the provisions are structured using a
TRE index approach. Since the standard is in a TRE format, many facilities may be
able to use product recovery to change vent stream characteristics so that they are
below the relevant applicability criteria. This flexibility is expected to allow
some sources to lower their cost of compliance through changes in equipment or
operations. As a result, the impacts analysis may overstate the costs of complying
with the proposed control requirement. The EPA solicits comments concerning whether
the control costs for process vents are overestimated and the extent of the
overestimate.
b. Process vents: New sources. The analysis of the data base showed that the
maximum degree of emission reduction being achieved by the best-controlled vent
occurs at a cost effectiveness value of $11,000/Mg ($9,980/ton). In the
determination of the process vent component of the source-wide floor for a new
source, vents with a cost effectiveness value for control of $11,000/Mg
($9,980/ton) would be controlled.
For the standard for new sources, EPA considered selecting a level of emission
reduction more stringent than the level associated with the source-wide floor.
However, a standard more stringent than the floor component is not being proposed
because the costs were considered high given the very small additional emission
reduction available. The additional control would achieve an additional emission
reduction of about 100 Mg/yr at a cost of about $5 million/yr. Therefore, the
control level associated with the source-wide floor was considered to represent the
maximum reduction achievable considering cost and other impacts. The proposed
standard for new sources reflects the floor level of control for new vents.
c. Storage vessels: Existing sources. In the analysis of the data base to
determine the storage vessel components of the source-wide floor, EPA divided the
population of model vessels into three size ranges. The size ranges were: 38 m sup
3 to 75 m sup 3 (10,000 to 20,000 gal) (small); 75 to 151 m sup 3 (20,000 to 40,000
gal) (medium); and greater than or equal to 151 m sup 3 (40,000 gal) (large). The
first two of the ranges include the two smallest model vessel sizes in the data
base and the third range is the combination of the remaining four model vessel size
ranges. The larger size range vessels were aggregated into one group because no
differences in control based on vessel capacity were expected for the vessels
exceeding 40,000 gallons capacity. Only one State regulation distinguishes among
vessels with capacities greater than 151 m sup 3 (40,000 gal) and none of the
greater than 151 m sup 3 (40,000 gal) storage vessels in the data base are affected
by those requirements. Consequently, separate analysis of each of the larger
capacity range model vessels would provide the same results as a combined analysis.
The parameter used in the analysis to determine the storage vessel components
of the source-wide floor was the vapor pressure of the liquid being stored. Vapor
pressure is one of three major factors that most influence emissions from storage
vessels and potential emission reductions. Furthermore, vapor pressure is commonly
a prime determining factor in whether or not a vessel is controlled.
For each segment of the storage vessel population, the procedure used to define
components for the source-wide floor was to rank storage vessels from lowest to
highest vapor pressure. Next, the vapor pressure at which at least 12 percent of
the vessels is controlled by the reference control technology was determined. The
analysis showed that at liquid vapor pressures of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) and higher
more than 12 percent of the medium and large vessels are controlled with the
reference technology. Of the vessels storing liquids with vapor pressures of 13.1
kPa (1.9 psia) and higher, about 30 percent of the medium vessels and 45 percent of
the large vessels were controlled with the reference technology. Therefore, the
storage vessel components of the source-wide floor are control of vessels 75 m sup
3 (20,000 gal) and higher that store liquids with vapor pressures of 13.1 kPa (1.9
psia) and higher. For small vessels, the analysis of the data base showed that only
6 percent of the vessels were expected to be controlled with the reference
technology. Therefore, since less than 12 percent of the small vessels are
controlled with the reference control technology the small vessel component of the
source-wide floor is no control.
For each of the three populations of storage vessels, EPA considered several
alternative levels of emission limitation. The alternatives differed in the vapor
pressures of the liquids that would require control and ranged from the vapor
pressure associated with the component of the source-wide floor (i.e., 13.1 kPa 1.9
psia ) to vapor pressures of 0.07 kPa (0.01 psia). After considering the
alternatives and the associated impacts, EPA proposes to require the following
storage vessels be equipped with the reference control technology: (1) Vessels with
a capacity greater than or equal to 151 m sup 3 (40,000 gal) storing HAP's with
vapor pressures of 5.2 kPa (0.75 psia) or greater and (2) vessels with a capacity
greater than or equal to 75 m sup 3 (20,000 gal) storing HAP's with vapor pressures
of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) and greater. No control requirements are being proposed for
storage vessels with capacities less than 75 m sup 3 (20,000 gal). In the selection
of these proposed control requirements, EPA believes, based on the available data,
that an emission reduction more stringent than the level associated with the floor
component for large vessels is achievable considering the statutory criteria. The
EPA also believes that no emission levels more stringent than the level associated
with the floor components for medium and small vessels are achievable considering
the statutory criteria. The statutory criteria considered in selection of the
proposed control requirements were the magnitude of the emission reductions, the
cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, non-air quality health impacts, and
other environmental impacts. The specific considerations of the statutory factors
in each of these decisions are summarized below.
The proposed control requirements for large storage vessels containing liquids
with HAP vapor pressures of 5.2 kPa (0.75 psia) or higher are estimated to achieve
an emission reduction of 4,800 Mg/yr (5,280 tons/yr) of HAP's compared to emissions
that would occur without the standard. This represents a 48 percent reduction of
emissions from this segment of the SOCMI storage vessel population. The annual cost
to achieve this reduction is about $7.3 million and the incremental cost-
effectiveness of the control beyond the floor is $1,100/Mg. Although EPA considered
proposing to control HAP's with vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) for large
vessels, it was found that this option was less economically efficient (i.e.,
higher incremental cost-effectiveness) than the proposed option. The cost-
effectiveness of the proposed {pg 62633} option is in the range of the cost-
effectiveness values of the Benzene Storage NESHAP.
The non-air quality health impacts as well as the energy and other
environmental impacts of the alternative control levels were also considered in the
selection of the proposed requirements for large storage vessels at existing
sources. No non-air quality health impacts were expected from any of the
alternatives and the energy and other environmental impacts did not vary
significantly among the alternatives. Thus, these considerations did not affect the
choice of the proposed requirements. The controls required by the proposed
requirements are not expected to create any secondary emissions of carbon monoxide
or nitrogen oxides. In addition, no secondary benefits of control of non-HAP VOC's
are expected. The energy impacts estimated for the selected control requirements
were about 5,400,000 kW-hr/yr for electricity. The energy requirements associated
with control of all large vessels storing HAP's of any vapor pressure was about 20
percent greater. The energy required for the control equipment represents a small
percentage of the total energy requirement for this industry. Based on previous
studies of SOCMI, no unreasonable adverse energy impacts are expected from any of
the alternative control levels considered.
A more stringent level of emission reduction is not being proposed because the
additional reduction that could be achieved through further control of large
storage vessels was not considered significant, given the additional cost. The
additional emission reduction achieved through control of HAP's with vapor
pressures lower than 5.2 kPa (0.75 psia) is about 4,000 Mg/yr (4,300 tons/yr). This
control would cost an additional $11.2 million per year. The cost-effectiveness of
this additional emission reduction is $2,900/Mg. The cost of achieving this
emission reduction was not considered reasonable.
In selecting the proposed emission limitations for small and medium storage
vessels at existing sources, EPA considered levels of emission reduction more
stringent than the level associated with the source- wide floor for these emission
points. The alternative control options considered for small vessels were: (1)
Vapor pressures of 76.6 kPa (11.1 psia) and higher; (2) vapor pressures of 5.2 kPa
(1.9 psia) and higher; and (3) vapor pressures greater than 0.07 kPa (0.01 psia).
The alternative control options beyond the floor component considered for medium
vessels were: (1) Vapor pressures of 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia) and higher; and (2) vapor
pressures greater than 0.07 kPa (0.01 psia). None of the alternative options for
either small or medium vessels is being proposed since the costs were considered
high given the very small potential emission reductions. Control beyond the floor
component for medium storage vessels would reduce emissions by less than 100 Mg/yr
(110 tons/yr) at a cost of $3.6 million/yr. With small storage vessels the maximum
potential reduction of 360 Mg/yr would cost about $19 million/yr. The average cost-
effectiveness of these control requirements varied from $53,000/Mg ($48,000/ton)
for small vessels to about $14,000/Mg ($12,700/ton) for medium vessels. Therefore,
EPA believes that the control level for the small and medium storage vessels
components of the source-wide floor represented the maximum reduction achievable
considering cost and other impacts. The EPA is proposing to require control of
medium storage vessels storing HAP's with vapor pressures of 5.2 kPa (1.9 psia) and
higher. No control requirements are being proposed for small storage vessels. For
both small and medium storage vessels, this proposal requires no control beyond the
respective components of the source-wide floor.
An additional consideration in the selection of the proposed options was the
non- air quality health impacts as well as the energy and other environmental
impacts of the alternative control levels. No non-air quality health impacts were
expected from any of the alternatives and the other environmental impacts did not
vary significantly among the alternatives. Thus, these considerations did not
affect the choice of the proposed requirements. The co-controls required by the
proposed requirements are not expected to create any secondary emissions of carbon
monoxide or nitrogen oxides. In addition, no secondary benefits of co-control of
non-HAP VOC's are expected. The energy impacts for the required controls for medium
storage vessels would be about 2,600,000 kW-hr/yr for electricity. The energy
requirements associated with control of medium storage vessels containing liquid
HAP's of any vapor pressure is slightly greater, but is not considered significant.
The energy required for the control equipment represents a small percentage of the
total energy requirement for this industry. Based on previous studies of SOCMI, no
unreasonable adverse energy impacts are expected from any of the alternative
control levels considered.
d. Storage vessels: New sources. The determination of the best controlled
storage vessels also used the three size ranges of model vessels. For the reasons
previously described, the parameter used in the analysis to determine the storage
vessel components of the source-wide floor was the vapor pressure of the liquid
being stored.
The analysis of the data base showed that the maximum degree of emission
limitation being achieved by the best-controlled vessels in each population segment
occurs at 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) for small and medium vessels and at 5.2 kPa (0.75
psia) for large vessels. For each of the three segments of the storage vessel
population, EPA considered several alternative levels of emission limitation more
stringent than the emission level associated with the floor component. The
alternatives were structured similarly to those for existing storage vessels but
differed in the vapor pressures of the liquids that would be required to apply
controls. The alternative control options examined for storage vessels at new
sources were: (1) for large and medium vessels, vapor pressures 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia)
and greater and vapor pressures of 0.07 kPa (0.01 psia) and greater; and (2) for
small vessels, vapor pressures of 0.07 kPa (0.01 psia) and greater.
The EPA is proposing to control large storage vessels that store HAP's with
vapor pressures of 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia) and higher. This proposed control will result
in a significant emission reduction at a reasonable cost. The proposed control
requirement for large storage vessels is estimated to achieve an emission reduction
of 1,100 Mg/yr (1,200 tons/yr) of HAP's compared to emissions that would occur
without the standard. This represents an 87 percent reduction from this segment of
the SOCMI storage vessel population. The annual cost to achieve this reduction is
about $0.8 million and the cost- effectiveness of this control is $730/Mg
($670/ton).
The non-air quality health impacts were considered in this decision as well as
the energy and other environmental impacts of the alternative control levels. As
with the other decisions, these factors did not vary significantly among the
alternatives. Thus, these considerations did not affect the choice of the proposed
requirements. The energy required for control beyond the floor component would be
about 200,000 kW-hr/yr for electricity.
The EPA is not proposing to require control of vapor pressures lower than 0.7
kPa (0.1 psia) for large storage vessels at new sources because the {pg 62634}
additional emission reduction achieved through further control was not significant,
given the additional cost. Further control was estimated to result in only 2 Mg/yr
additional reduction at an additional cost of $233,000/yr. This cost was judged to
be disproportionately high.
For small and medium vessels at new sources, none of the alternative control
options more stringent than the floor components were selected. After considering
the emission reductions, costs, and other impacts of the alternatives, EPA
determined the cost to achieve the additional reduction was high given the very
small potential emission reductions. Additional control would reduce emissions from
medium storage vessels by less than 20 Mg/yr (22 tons/yr) at an additional cost of
about $700,000/yr. For the small storage vessels segment of the population, further
control would result in less than 10 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr) emission reduction at an
added cost of about $2.1 million/yr. The incremental cost effectiveness values for
these control requirements are about $304,000/Mg ($276,000/ton) for small vessels
and $42,000/Mg ($38,100/ton) for medium vessels. The consideration of the non-air
quality health impacts as well as the energy requirements and other environmental
impacts was similar to that in the decision for existing storage vessels.
Therefore, EPA determined that the control level for the small and medium storage
vessels components of the sourcewide floor represented the maximum reduction
achievable considering cost and other impacts.
e. Transfer operations: Existing sources. In the analysis of the data base to
determine the transfer rack components of the source wide floor, EPA divided the
population of model racks into two groups based on the vapor pressure of materials
loaded. The vapor pressure groupings were transfer racks loading materials with
average vapor pressures less than 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and racks loading materials
with vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and higher. These two groups are the
result of several simplifying assumptions used in the analysis and the fact that
most State regulations only require control of racks loading chemicals with vapor
pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and higher.
The procedure used to determine the transfer rack components of the source-wide
floor was to rank the racks in these two groups by quantity loaded (throughput) in
ascending order. Since emissions from transfer operations are largely determined by
throughput and vapor pressure, throughput was expected to provide a good measure of
whether or not a rack is controlled. For both groups, the throughput at which more
than 12 percent of the racks is controlled by the reference control technology was
determined. The analysis showed that for transfer racks that load HAP's with vapor
pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia), and higher, that have throughputs greater than or
equal to 0.65 million l/yr (170,000 gal/yr) more than 12 percent of the racks are
controlled with the reference technology. None of the transfer racks that load
HAP's with vapor pressures less than 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) are controlled with the
reference technology. Therefore, the transfer rack component of the source-wide
floor is control of racks that load HAP's with vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5
psia) and higher and that have throughputs of 0.65 million l/yr (170,000 gal/yr) or
greater.
Only two levels of emission limitation were evaluated and considered in the
selection of the proposed control requirements. These alternatives were the
emission level associated with the transfer rack component of the sourcewide floor
and the level associated with control of all transfer racks. To simplify the
consideration of control alternatives, the emissions and cost information for the
two groups of racks were combined. After considering the emission reductions,
costs, and other impacts of the alternatives, EPA believes that the level of
emission limitation associated with the component of the source-wide floor is
achievable.
The more stringent level of emission reduction is not being proposed because
the additional emission reduction achieved is not significant and the cost of this
reduction is high. Control beyond the level associated with the source-wide floor
would reduce emissions from transfer racks by less than 70 Mg/yr (77 tons/yr) at a
cost of $3.4 million/yr. The average cost effectiveness of this control is
$54,000/Mg ($49,000/ton).
As with the decisions on the other emission points, no non-air quality health
impacts were expected from any of the alternatives and the other environmental
impacts did not vary significantly among the alternatives. Thus, these
considerations did not affect the choice of the proposed requirements. The controls
required by the proposed requirements are not expected to create any significant
secondary emissions of carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides. In addition, no
secondary benefits of co-control of non-HAP VOC's are expected. The energy impacts
for the required controls are also not believed to be significant.
f. Transfer operations: New sources. The analysis of the data base showed that
the maximum degree of emission reduction being achieved by the best controlled
transfer rack occurs at vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and throughputs
greater than or equal to 0.65 million l/yr (0.17 million gal/yr). Thus, for new
sources the transfer rack component of the source wide floor is identical to that
for existing sources.
The decision on the control requirements considered the same two levels of
emission limitation that were considered for transfer racks at existing sources.
For the same reasons discussed earlier, EPA is not proposing to require a more
stringent level of emission reduction. After considering emission reductions and
other information, EPA believes that the level of emission limitation associated
with the component of the source-wide floor is achievable.
g. Process wastewater: Existing sources. The parameters used in the analysis of
the data base to identify the floor level of control for wastewater streams were:
Concentration of chemicals with high volatility in wastewater (e.g., benzene or
vinyl chloride); concentration of chemicals with lower volatilities than benzene,
or semivolatile HAP's; and flow rate. These parameters were used because they are
among the primary factors that most influence air emissions from wastewater
streams.
As previously noted, EPA used data on the control requirements in existing
State and Federal regulations to identify streams that must be controlled and to
identify the required controls. The only controlled wastewater streams in the data
base were those estimated to meet the applicability requirements of either the
Vinyl Chloride NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, or the Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. There are no State regulations requiring
control of air emissions from wastewater. Consequently, the procedure used in the
analysis of the existing control level for wastewater operations was to determine
the proportion of processes and wastewater streams that have concentrations above
the control criteria in the Benzene Waste NESHAP or Vinyl Chloride NESHAP (greater
than 10 ppm benzene or vinyl chloride) compared to the total number of processes
and wastewater streams. The estimate of the number of processes and benzene
containing wastewater streams subject to the Benzene Waste NESHAP was adjusted by
the expected proportion of {pg 62635} the facilities exceeding the facility-wide
threshold for control. This analysis showed that fewer than 5 percent of SOCMI
processes and fewer than 3 percent of the wastewater streams are currently
controlled to the efficiency of the reference control technology. Therefore, since
less than 12 percent of existing wastewater streams are controlled, the component
of the source-wide floor for existing wastewater streams (Option 0) is estimated to
be no control.
The EPA considered alternative levels of emission reduction that varied from
controlling those process wastewater streams that are larger and more cost
effective to control to controlling all wastewater streams. The EPA is proposing to
require control of process wastewater streams with greater than or equal to 10 l pm
flow rate and greater than 1000 ppmw total VOHAP concentration (Option 1). The
proposed control level was selected considering the emission reductions of the
alternative control options and the criteria enumerated in section 112(d) of the
Act. The proposed alternative is considered to achieve the maximum emission
limitation that is achievable considering cost, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Although EPA is proposing this
specific option, commenters should be aware that there are a number of technical
issues regarding the emission and cost estimation methodologies. (These issues are
discussed in section VII.E.3 of this notice.) The EPA anticipates that for
wastewater controls there may be changes in the emission and cost estimates that
result from the resolution of the technical and scientific issues and any new
information received during the public comment period. The final rule will be based
on consideration of the revised estimates. The considerations of the currently
available information on the alternative control options are summarized below.
Wastewater streams at existing sources are believed to be the second largest
contributor of HAP emissions from the emission points regulated by the HON. The
proposed control requirements are expected to achieve an emission reduction of
82,100 Mg/yr (90,300 tons/yr) of HAP's compared to current emission levels for the
well characterized processes. This represents an 84 percent reduction from the
uncontrolled emission rate. The annual cost to achieve this reduction is $23.9
million. The cost-effectiveness of going from no control to the proposed control is
$290/Mg ($265/ton) for the well characterized processes.
The estimated costs of the proposed wastewater control requirements are based
on use of steam strippers to control the wastewater stream and do not reflect any
potential cost savings from use of the other means of demonstrating compliance that
are provided in the wastewater provisions. One of these compliance options allows a
source to demonstrate compliance through use of pollution prevention measures and
waste treatment to change the wastewater stream characteristics. This compliance
option is expected to lower the cost of compliance for some sources. Thus, EPA
believes that the cost analysis may overstate the cost of complying with the
proposed wastewater provisions. Industry representatives have indicated that they
believe the cost estimates to be understated. The EPA requests comments on whether
the costs of the proposed control requirements are reasonable and asks that
commenters provide supporting information for their estimates.
The non-air quality health impacts as well as the energy and other
environmental impacts of the alternative control levels were also considered in the
selection of the proposed requirements. No non-air quality health impacts were
expected from any of the alternatives and the energy and other environmental
impacts did not vary significantly among the alternatives. Thus, these
considerations did not affect the choice of the proposed requirements. The energy
impacts estimated for the selected control requirements were about 4,000,000 kW-
hr/yr for electricity and 3,600,000 million Btu/yr for steam. The energy required
for the most stringent control level was only slightly greater for electricity and
steam. These energy requirements represent a small percentage of the total energy
requirement for this industry. Based on previous studies of SOCMI, no unreasonable
adverse energy impacts are expected from any of the alternative control levels
considered.
While EPA could not quantify the non-air quality benefits, EPA considers
control of wastewater streams to result in non-air quality benefits. These benefits
include generation of less hazardous waste, less groundwater contamination, and
less contamination of stormwater.
An additional air quality benefit considered in the selection of the proposed
alternative is that SOCMI wastewater streams also can contain non- HAP VOC's. These
non-HAP VOC's will be controlled when streams are controlled for HAP emissions.
This co-control is expected to significantly reduce emissions of non-HAP VOC's,
which in specific locations may contribute to efforts to reduce tropospheric ozone.
Alternative control Options 2 through 4 were not selected because the
additional emission reduction achieved through further control was not significant,
given the costs and the uncertainty regarding the characterization of SOCMI
wastewater systems. Specifically, control of wastewater streams with flows of 5 l
pm or greater and concentrations of 800 ppmw VOHAP (Option 2) was estimated to
result in about 700 Mg/yr (770 tons/yr) additional reduction at a cost of about
$1.8 million/yr. This control option has a cost-effectiveness value of $2,600/Mg
($2,400/ton). Options 3 and 4 achieve only a small additional emission reduction at
cost- effectiveness values of $4,200/Mg to $21,000/Mg ($3,800/ton to $19,000/ton).
Given the technical uncertainties that exist regarding the representation of SOCMI
wastewater streams and industry practices in design of wastewater collection and
treatment systems, it is uncertain whether any of the alternative control options
considered would result in additional emission reductions. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing any options more stringent than Option 1.
h. Process wastewater: New sources. The analysis of the data base also showed
the maximum emission reduction being achieved is determined by the control
requirements for the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP.
Under these rules, wastewater streams with 10 ppmw or greater and flow rates
greater than 0.02 l pm have to be treated prior to discharge and units in which
waste is managed before treatment must be equipped with 95 percent efficient air
emission controls. This emission limitation was assumed to be equally applicable to
other chemicals that have volatilities in water equal to or greater than benzene
and vinyl chloride. These chemicals, which are termed VVHAP, are listed in Table 8
of the proposed Subpart G. As previously noted, there are no State or Federal
regulations that would require control of chemicals other than benzene or vinyl
chloride. Therefore, there is no control at the floor for chemicals with
volatilities lower than that of benzene or vinyl chloride. In the determination of
the source-wide floor component for new sources, wastewater streams containing 10
ppmw, or more, of VVHAP would be required to be controlled to the efficiency of the
reference technology {pg 62636} and chemicals with lower volatilities would not.
The EPA developed alternative control options for process wastewater streams at
new sources by first considering whether to require control beyond the floor
component for VVHAP containing streams (Option 1) and then considering control
options for lower volatility chemicals in wastewater streams. No alternatives were
developed for further control of VVHAP since the potential additional emission
reduction for VVHAP was minimal. For the less volatile chemicals, EPA examined
several alternative options. Table 6 shows the emission reductions and costs
associated with the floor control for VVHAP combined with the emission reduction
and costs for control of total VOHAP concentrations of either 1,000 ppmw (Option 2)
or 5 ppmw (Option 3). After considering the alternatives and the associated
impacts, EPA is proposing the control requirements in Option 2. The proposed
control requirements for new source wastewater streams would apply to 3 sets of
streams: streams with flow rates of 0.02 lpm or greater and concentrations of 10
ppmw or greater of VVHAP (as defined in Table 8 in Sec. 63.132 of subpart G);
streams with flow rates of 10 lpm or greater and concentrations of 1000 ppmw or
greater of VOHAP (as defined in Table 9 of Sec. 63.138 of subpart G); and all
streams with concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater of VOHAP. The proposed
control level was selected considering the emission reduction achieved by the
alternative control options for VOHAP emissions and considering the criteria
enumerated in section 112(d) of the Act. The proposed alternative is considered to
achieve the maximum emission reduction considering the cost, non-air quality health
effects, environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The considerations of
these factors and the uncertainties in the estimates are described below.
The proposed control requirements are estimated to achieve a reduction of
15,900 Mg/yr (17,500 tons/yr) of VVHAP and VOHAP compared to emissions in absence
of this rule. This represents an 86 percent reduction from uncontrolled emission
rates for wastewater. The annual cost to achieve this reduction is about $6.9
million. As noted in the discussion of the proposed control for existing wastewater
streams, there is uncertainty whether the costs are understated or overstated.
Option 2 is estimated to achieve an emission reduction of about 3,000 Mg/yr
(3,300 tons/yr) of VOHAP emissions above the floor. This control would have cost of
about $1.8 million/yr and a cost-effectiveness value of $600/Mg ($540/ton).
In selecting Option 2 for the proposed control requirements, EPA also
considered the non-air quality health effects as well as the energy requirements
and other environmental impacts. The consideration of these criteria was similar to
that in the selection of controls for existing wastewater streams. No non-air
quality health impacts were expected from any of the alternatives. In comparing the
alternatives, EPA found that the environmental and energy impacts did not vary
significantly among the alternatives. The energy and secondary impacts from the
control devices were not considered significant.
The proposed control requirements are expected to have secondary non-air
quality benefits such as reduced potential for groundwater contamination. The
selected alternative is estimated to result in control of about 30 percent of the
total wastewater volume from new SOCMI sources.
The EPA is not proposing a more stringent level of emission limitation because
control beyond the selected level is estimated to achieve only a small additional
emission reduction. The further control would reduce emissions by an additional
1,000 Mg/yr (1,100 tons/yr) of VOHAP. This control would cost about $20 million per
year, an increase of about $13 million per year over the cost of the proposed
control level. Because the cost is disproportionately large compared to this
additional emission reduction and the great uncertainties regarding the potential
emission reduction, EPA is not proposing the more stringent control option.
B. Selection of Process Vents Provisions
1. Selection of Format
The format chosen for process vent streams is dependent upon the control device
selected. For vent streams controlled by control devices other than flares, the
format is a combination of a weight-percent reduction and an outlet concentration.
A weight-percent reduction format is appropriate for streams with HAP concentration
above 1000 ppmv because such a format ensures that the stream will meet the
reference control technology requirements. For process vents with concentrations
below about 1000 ppmv, a 20 ppmv outlet concentration was selected because 98
percent reduction may not be achievable. Further details on selection of this
format are presented in the proposal preamble for the SOCMI reactors NSPS (55 FR
26953, June 29, 1990).
The combustion of vent streams containing halogenated organic compounds can
produce emissions of halogens and hydrogen halides, some of which are HAP's, such
as hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride. To reduce these emissions,
the proposed standard requires the use of a scrubber after the combustion device
for halogenated process vent streams. The format of the standard for such scrubbers
is a percent reduction or outlet concentration of those halogens and hydrogen
halides that can be measured using the EPA Method 26 or Method 26A. A percent
reduction format ensures that most streams will meet the reference control
technology requirements. However, an alternative outlet concentration level is
needed for low concentration streams where the specified percent reduction would
result in outlet levels too low to measure.
For vent streams controlled by a flare, the proposal includes equipment and
operating specifications because it is very difficult to measure the emissions from
a flare to determine its efficiency.
2. Selection of Group Determination Procedures, Performance Tests, Monitoring
Requirements, and Test Methods
The standard specifies the group determination procedures, performance tests,
monitoring requirements, and test methods necessary to determine whether a process
vent stream is required to apply control devices and to demonstrate that the
allowed emission levels are achieved when controls are applied. As with the format
of the process vent provisions, these requirements are dependent on the control
device selected.
a. Group determination procedures. Each owner or operator would be required to
follow group determination methods and procedures to determine whether the vent is
a Group 1 or Group 2 process vent or comply directly with the requirement to reduce
organic HAP emissions by 98 weightpercent or to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv
through use of a control device. There are three group determination procedures:
(1) Process vent flow rate measurement, (2) process vent HAP concentration
measurement, and (3) TRE index value determination. The specific test methods for
these three determinations are described under section VII.B.2.c ''Test Methods''
of this notice.
Process vents with a flow rate less than 0.005 scm/min are considered Group 2
process vents. Vent streams {pg 62637} with flow rates less than 0.005 scm/min are
expected to have a TRE greater than 1.0. The flow rate measurement would allow
sources with very low flows a less burdensome way to determine if they are Group 2
(instead of performing a TRE calculation).
Process vents with a HAP concentration less than 50 ppmv are considered Group 2
process vents. Vent streams with organic HAP concentrations less than 50 ppmv are
expected to have a TRE greater than 1.0. The HAP or TOC concentration measurement
using Method 18 or 25A (instead of performing a TRE calculation) would allow
sources with very low organic HAP concentrations a less burdensome way to determine
they are Group 2.
An analysis using the HON TRE equation and model process vent stream
characteristics in the HON data base showed that process vents with flow rates or
HAP concentrations below these levels would have TRE index values above 1.
Process vents with a TRE index value greater than 1.0 are considered Group 2
process vents. The TRE index value can be calculated by using inputs derived from
engineering assessment (including process knowledge) or test method measurements.
The inputs to the equations are the HAP and TOC concentrations, the net heating
value, and the flow rate of the vent stream. If the TRE index value calculated
using engineering assessment is greater than 4.0, then the owner or operator would
not be required to measure stream characteristics.
The TRE of 4.0 was selected by considering the uncertainty of the engineering
assessment of the inputs to the TRE equation and process variability. If a TRE
index value is calculated to be above 4.0, it was determined that it is very
unlikely that either uncertainties in estimating inputs to the equation or normal
process variations could cause the actual TRE index value to be below 1.0.
Therefore, the vent can be considered Group 2 without making measurements. However,
engineering assessment procedures must meet the specifications in the regulation
and must be fully documented in order to assure that the TRE calculation is
acceptable.
If the TRE index value is less than 4.0, testing using the appropriate flow
rate method and Method 18 is required to determine flow rate, HAP and TOC
concentrations, and net heating value for input to the TRE equation.
b. Performance test. Initial performance tests are required for all control
devices other than flares and certain boilers and process heaters. Specifically,
testing would be required for: (1) Incinerators, (2) scrubbers used with combustion
devices to control halogenated vent streams, and (3) some boilers and process
heaters smaller than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr). Performance tests: (1) Ensure that
a control device can achieve the required control level and (2) help establish
operating parameters that are indicative of proper operation and maintenance.
An initial performance test is not required for boilers and process heaters
larger than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because they operate at high temperatures
and residence times. Analysis shows that when vent streams are introduced into the
flame zone of these boilers and process heaters, over 98 percent reduction or an
outlet concentration of 20 ppmv is achieved. Therefore, a performance test is not
necessary. This is more fully explained in the proposal notice for the SOCMI
reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966, June 29, 1990). Unlike the proposed SOCMI
reactor processes NSPS, the proposed HON would not require a performance test for
boilers that mix the vent stream with the primary fuel to a boiler or process
heater because available information shows that in such situations boilers and
process heaters achieve 98 percent control or better.
Because percent reduction and outlet concentration cannot feasibly be measured
at flares, the flare must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.11 for operating
conditions.
c. Test methods. The proposed process vent provisions would require the use of
approved test methods to ensure consistent and verifiable results for group
determination procedures, initial performance tests, and compliance demonstrations.
Performance tests are required to demonstrate compliance for control devices other
than flares and certain boilers and process heaters. For group determination,
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is specified for measuring
vent stream flow rate (prior to combustion).
Also, Method 18 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is specified for measuring
total vent stream HAP or TOC concentration to determine whether HAP concentration
is below 50 ppmv. Method 18 measures individually- speciated organic compounds.
Method 25A measures total organic compound content of the vent stream and does not
speciate organic HAP; thus, it includes any methane and ethane in the vent. Method
25A may be used only if a single organic HAP compound is greater than 50 percent of
the total organic HAP in the vent stream and that HAP compound is used for
calibration. In addition, if Method 25A is used, TOC must be below 25 ppmv (instead
of 50 ppmv as in Method 18) for a vent to be considered Group 2. A safety factor of
2 is being applied because the method will measure the HAP to which it is
calibrated, but could under-estimate other HAP's in the vent stream. Method 18 is
specified for measuring TOC and HAP concentrations for use in the TRE equation
because concentrations of individually- speciated organic compounds are needed to
calculate the net heating value for input to the TRE equation.
In order to determine whether a vent stream is halogenated and to calculate
TRE, Method 18 is specified for measuring speciated halogenated organic compounds.
The total vent stream concentration of total halogen atoms shall be summed from the
individual halogen atoms in each organic HAP compound based on the molecular
formula of the compound and the concentrations of the compounds containing
halogens. For example, 150 ppmv of ethylene dichloride would contain 300 ppmv of
total halogen atoms. Process knowledge that no halogenated compounds are present is
acceptable for determination that a vent stream is not halogenated. Method 26 or
proposed Method 26A is specified for measuring halogens and hydrogen halides from
scrubbers following combustors. Proposed revisions to Method 26 and the proposed
addition of Method 26A to 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are discussed in a separate
notice in this issue of the Federal Register.
In order to allow owners or operators greater flexibility, the proposed
provisions also allow the use of any test method or test results validated
according to the protocol in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
The EPA considered allowing Method 25A as an alternative to Method 18 for
demonstrating compliance of control devices applied to process vents; however,
Method 25A is not included as an alternative for demonstrating compliance with the
emissions reduction or control device outlet concentration in the proposed rule.
The basis for the decision was that the EPA determined that the results obtained
with Method 25A would not consistently demonstrate HAP control efficiency. Process
vent streams often contain mixtures of multiple organic HAP's and other organic
compounds. The TOC measurements obtained with Method 25A would vary depending on
{pg 62638} how the method is calibrated because response factors for individual
compounds vary. Furthermore, some compounds such as formaldehyde and halogenated
compounds are not well detected by Method 25A. Another concern is that the relative
proportion of individual organic compounds may change across the combustor.
Therefore, specifying calibration with the principal HAP in the inlet would not
necessarily produce reliable results.
The EPA requests comments and data on whether the use of Method 25A would
provide accurate measurements of TOC control. In particular, EPA requests comment
on the two following procedures for using Method 25A:
Procedure I:
a. Calibrate Method 25A with the primary organic HAP constituent (i.e., greater
than 50 percent of the total organic HAP by volume) at the control device inlet;
b. Measure greater than 99 percent TOC reduction (to be more conservative, as
opposed to 98 percent reduction measured by Method 18) or;
c. Measure less than 10 ppmv TOC concentration at control device outlet (to be
more conservative, as opposed to 20 ppmv measured by Method 18).
Procedure II:
a. Calibrate to propane;
b. Measure 99 percent reduction or 10 ppmv TOC at outlet.
The EPA also requests comments and data on other potential test methods or
procedures that would provide accurate TOC reduction measurements. In particular,
data comparing vent stream composition at the inlet and outlet of combustion
devices are requested. Data comparing results of Method 25A and Method 18 tests for
combustion of vent streams composed of multiple organic compound mixtures are
requested.
d. Monitoring. Control devices used to comply with the proposed standard need
to be maintained and operated properly if either a 98 percent reduction or
reduction to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv is to be achieved on a continuing
basis. Monitoring of the control device operating parameters can be used to ensure
that such proper operation and maintenance are occurring.
The proposed standard lists the parameters that can be monitored for the common
types of combustion devices: Thermal incinerators; catalytic incinerators; boilers
and process heaters; and flares. These parameters were selected because they are
good indicators of combustion device performance, and instruments are available at
a reasonable cost to continuously monitor these parameters. These parameters are
generally the same as those required by the reactor processes, air oxidation, and
distillation NSPS. The rationale for their selection is fully explained in the
proposal notice for the SOCMI reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 2966- 26968, June 29,
1990). The proposed rule also allows the owner or operator to request to monitor
other parameters on a site-specific basis.
The proposed standard would require the owner or operator to establish site-
specific parameter ranges through the Notification of Compliance Status report and
operating permit. Site-specific parameter ranges accommodate site-specific
differences in control design and process vent stream characteristics. The EPA
requests comment and data on whether an alternative range or minimum value of
monitored parameters should be set and, if so, what the values should be.
Unlike the proposed SOCMI reactor processes NSPS, the proposed HON would not
require monitoring of boilers and process heaters of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) or
greater or of boilers and process heaters below 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) that
introduce the process vent stream as a primary fuel or mix it with the primary fuel
and introduce it through the same burner. This decision was made because the
burning characteristics of these units generally ensure a 98 percent reduction in
the organic content of the process vent stream.
The proposed rule also specifies monitoring requirements for scrubbers
installed to remove halogens and hydrogen halides from the combustor outlet.
For Group 2 process vent streams that have TRE index values greater than 1.0
but less than or equal to 4.0, monitoring of the final recovery device would be
required to ensure that it continues to be operated as it was during the group
determination test when the initial TRE index value was calculated. Improper
recovery device operation and maintenance could lead to increased organic HAP
concentration, potentially reducing the TRE index value below 1.0, and causing the
vent to become a Group 1 process vent. Continuous monitoring will ensure continued
good performance of recovery devices. The TRE index value monitoring level of 4.0
is being proposed because the variability of the process parameters established
during normal operating conditions are unlikely to vary to the extent that a TRE
value above 4.0 would be reduced to a TRE level less than 1.0 and thus require
control.
The proposed standard specifies the parameters that can be monitored for the
three common types of recovery devices: absorbers, condensers, and carbon
adsorbers. These parameters were selected because they are good indicators of
recovery device performance, and instruments are available at a reasonable cost to
continuously monitor these process parameters. These monitoring parameters are the
same as those already required by the reactor processes, air oxidation, and
distillation NSPS. The rationale for their selection is fully explained in the
proposal notice for the SOCMI reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26968-26969, June 29,
1990). The proposed rule also allows the owner or operator to request to monitor
parameters on a site-specific basis. The owner or operator would establish a site-
specific range for the parameters through the Notification of Compliance Status
report and operating permit.
C. Selection of Storage Vessel Provisions
1. Selection of Format
For Group 1 storage vessels, the storage vessel provisions require control by:
(1) Tank improvements (internal or external floating roofs with proper seals and
fittings) or (2) a closed vent system and control device. The format for the
storage vessel provisions is dependent upon the control device selected. For
storage vessels controlled by internal or external floating roofs, the format is a
combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards because
all of these are necessary to ensure that the vessel will meet the reference
control technology requirements. The EPA chose not to propose an emission limit
format for storage vessels because that would require equipping each vessel with a
capture system; the corresponding costs would be prohibitive.
The design requirements for vessels controlled with tank improvements are five
different equipment configurations specified in the rule. Additional operational
and work practice requirements, which consist of inspection and repair
requirements, are necessary to ensure the continued integrity of the control
equipment.
For vessels controlled by a closed vent system and control device, EPA is
proposing a design and equipment format. This format accommodates the wide
variation in emissions and flow rates being vented from the vessel, and requires
that the closed vent system and control device meet the reference control
technology requirements.
The closed vent system must be capable of collecting HAP vapors and gases
discharged from the storage vessel. {pg 62639} The control device must reduce the
HAP emissions discharged into it at an efficiency of at least 95 percent by weight
and must be operated to achieve this level of emission reduction. Operational
requirements, which consist of, among other things, inspection, repair, and work
practice requirements, are necessary to ensure the proper operation and integrity
of control equipment meeting a design and equipment standard.
2. Selection of Compliance Provisions
The proposed storage vessel provisions require control by tank improvements or
a closed vent system and control device; however, the choice of control
technologies is limited depending on the material stored. For vessels storing
liquids with vapor pressures less than 76.6 kPa, either control option may be
selected. However, for vessels storing liquids with vapor pressures greater than or
equal to 76.6 kPa, tank improvements do not achieve the expected level of emission
reductions. As a result, Group 1 storage vessels containing liquids with a maximum
true vapor pressure of organic HAP's greater than or equal to 76.6 kPa must be
controlled with a closed vent system and control device. Tank improvements would
not be allowed as the reference control technology for these vessels.
Compliance provisions in the proposed rule are dependent upon the control
device selected. The following discussion separately addresses the provisions for
internal floating roofs, external floating roofs, and closed vent systems and
control devices.
a. Internal floating roof vessels. After a vessel is filled, it is impossible
to accurately ascertain the condition of the primary seal. Additionally, most
repairs cannot be performed on an internal floating roof that is in service. For
these reasons, for storage vessels at new sources, the proposed standards would
require the owner or operator to inspect and report the condition of the internal
floating roof, seals, and other required equipment before placing the storage
vessel in service.
Because internal floating roofs and seals can fail, resulting in an increase in
emissions, owners and operators are required to inspect each storage vessel at new
and existing sources periodically and to repair any failures. If failures are
detected during an inspection, the vessel must be repaired or emptied within 45
days. This 45-day limit was selected because survey data indicated that most
facilities could empty a storage vessel having equipment in need of repair within
45 days. In addition, two 30-day extensions may be requested from the
Administrator.
As with the previous NSPS for storage vessels and the benzene NESHAP, two types
of inspections are required by the proposed rule: (1) Visual inspection of the
internal floating roof and seals through the manholes and roof hatches on the fixed
roof (i.e., by an observer or television monitor); and (2) internal inspection of
the internal floating roof, seals, and deck fittings of a vessel that has been
emptied and degassed. To allow flexibility, the proposed rule includes two
different schedules for inspections. The first schedule would require a visual
inspection at least once every year and an internal inspection at least once every
10 years. The second schedule, which may be used only if a secondary seal is in
place, would require an internal inspection at least once every 5 years but would
not require annual visual inspections.
The owner or operator may find it necessary on occasion to empty and degas a
storage vessel for reasons other than equipment inspections (e.g., to repair a
failure detected during an annual visual inspection). In order to further reduce
the emissions due to degassing for inspections, the proposed rule allows an
internal inspection any time a storage vessel is degassed for any purpose. The date
of this inspection would become the beginning of the 5- or 10-year time period
before the next required inspection.
b. External floating roof vessels. As described in section VII.C.2.a for the
internal floating roof vessels, the proposed provisions for the external floating
roof storage vessels at new sources would require the owner or operator to inspect
and report the condition of the seal system of the external floating roof before
placing the storage vessel in service.
In order to ensure the continued effectiveness of external floating roof
controls, EPA is proposing the following requirements. The owner or operator must:
(1) Measure the seal gaps in both the primary and secondary seals within 90 days of
introducing HAP's into the vessel; (2) measure the primary seal gap once every 5
years; and (3) measure the secondary seal gap once every year. In addition, the
proposed rule requires that the vessel be visually inspected each time the vessel
is emptied and degassed because any failures in the seals would have to be repaired
before the vessel is refilled.
Whenever seal gaps exceed the limits specified in the rule, the owner or
operator would be required to repair the seal or empty the vessel within 45 days
unless an extension is granted. However, the proposed rule would allow delay of the
seal gap measurement if the owner or operator determined that the floating roof was
structurally unsound and that it would be unsafe to conduct the inspection. To
minimize the potential for an increase in emissions, the proposed rule would
require that the inspection be performed within 30 days of the determination that
the roof is unsafe or that the vessel be emptied within 45 days of the
determination. In addition, two 30-day extensions for emptying the vessel may be
requested from the Administrator.
c. Closed vent systems and control devices. To enable EPA to determine
compliance with the requirements for the closed vent system and control device, the
proposed rule requires the owner or operator to submit plans and specifications for
the system to the EPA as part of their Implementation Plan. In addition, because
closed vent systems and vapor control devices are also subject to failures or
improper operation, the proposed standard requires periodic inspection of closed
vent systems for leaks.
Many failures can be detected by regular inspection of operational parameters.
Therefore, the proposed standard requires the owner or operator to monitor those
operational parameters that would indicate that the device is operating properly.
To ensure the integrity of the closed vent system and control device, the proposed
standard also requires that inspections for leaks greater than 500 ppm be performed
during filling of the vessel and at least once per year. Leaks must be repaired no
later than 15 days after being detected. However, repair of the leaks may be
delayed until the next process unit shutdown if the owner or operator demonstrates
in a report to the Administrator that the repair is technically infeasible without
a process unit shutdown or that emissions of purged material resulting from
immediate repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result from
delay of repair.
D. Selection of Transfer Loading Operations Provisions
1. Selection of Format
For Group 1 racks, the transfer provisions require vapor collection and
control. The format for the provisions for vapor collection systems includes
equipment design and work practice standards to ensure that the HAP- containing
vapors are collected and routed to the control device or vapor balancing system. To
ensure vapors are captured by the collection system and {pg 62640} are not lost to
the atmosphere through leaks in the vehicle, the provisions include a work practice
standard requiring owners and operators of transfer racks subject to control to
load organic HAP's only into tank trucks and railcars that are DOT certified or are
vapor tight.
The format of the proposed provisions for control devices depends upon the
control device selected. For streams controlled by control devices other than
flares, the format is a combination of a weight-percent reduction and an outlet
concentration. A weight-percent reduction is required for streams with HAP
concentration above 1000 ppmv because such a format ensures that the stream will
meet the reference control technology requirements. As mentioned in Section VII.B,
''Selection of Process Vents Provisions,'' the 20 ppmv level is needed as an
alternative format for sources with inlet organic HAP concentrations below about
1,000 ppmv. These streams may not be able to achieve 98 percent control, but can
achieve an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv.
As with process vents, scrubbers are required to remove halogens and hydrogen
halides from combustor outlet streams when streams containing halogenated compounds
are combusted. The format for the scrubber compliance is a combination of percent
reduction and an outlet concentration limit.
For streams controlled by a flare, an equipment standard with stated equipment
and operating specifications is being proposed as the format because it is very
difficult to measure the emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
For vapor balancing systems, an equipment and work practices standard is being
proposed. Vapor balancing systems are required to return emissions from transfer
operations back to the storage vessel from which the liquid being transferred
originated. If the vapor balancing system is properly operated and inspected for
leaks, there should be virtually no emissions from a vapor balancing system. Thus,
the proposed provisions require that the system be inspected annually for leaks.
2. Selection of Performance Tests, Monitoring Requirements, and Test Methods
a. Initial performance test. Performance tests: (1) Ensure that a control
device applied to a Group 1 rack can achieve the required control level and (2)
establish operating conditions under which the device should continue to achieve
the required level of control. For these reasons, an initial performance test would
be required for all control devices except: (1) Flares; (2) boilers and process
heaters with design heat input capacities of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) or greater;
and (3) boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities less than 44
MW that introduce the process vent stream as a primary fuel or mix it with the
primary fuel and introduce it through the same burner. A discussion of the
rationale for excluding flares and boilers and process heaters is presented in the
discussion of process vents, section VII.B.2 of this preamble.
Because the format for the provisions for vapor balancing systems includes
equipment design and work practice standards, a performance test is not required. A
vapor balancing system inherently prevents emissions to the atmosphere. The
requirement for annual leak detection and repair ensures that fugitive emissions
from the system will be minimal.
As described in Sec. 63.128 of subpart G, a performance test measuring the
percent reduction or outlet concentration would not be required for streams
controlled by a flare. However, the flare must comply with Sec. 63.11 which
includes a compliance determination according to Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, and design specifications for velocity and heat content.
The EPA attempted to specify a performance test duration that would provide a
representative test period to measure control device performance and establish
monitoring parameter ranges. Emissions and control performance may vary over the
filling cycle and over the control device cycle where intermittent vapor processing
systems are used. Intermittent vapor processing systems are systems that have a
vapor holder to accumulate vapors and treats the vapors during automatically
controlled cycles. It was considered that filling duration, filling frequency, and
control device cycle duration will be different from facility to facility. The
performance test period should be long enough to obtain representative results, but
short enough that the test is not unduly burdensome for the source. The proposed
performance test duration is three filling periods for continuous vapor processing
systems; and three control device cycles for intermittent vapor processing systems.
The EPA requests comments or suggestions with supporting data and/or rationale on
the proposed performance test duration.
b. Test methods. The proposed standard requires the use of approved test
methods to ensure consistent and verifiable results for initial performance tests
and compliance demonstration.
The transfer provisions allow the use of either Method 18 or Method 25A for
compliance with the percent reduction and outlet concentration. Method 25A is
proposed as a method for determining emissions from transfer racks but not process
vents because emission characteristics make this method more appropriate for
transfer operations. Transfer operations typically load products of known
composition. One, or at most a few, organic HAP's would be routed to the control
device at one time. Therefore, Method 25A can be calibrated to the specific organic
HAP being controlled and will provide a reliable measurement of control device
inlet and outlet emission levels. This is in contrast to the situation described in
Section VII.B.2 for process vents containing complex mixtures of several organic
compounds. However, EPA requests comments and data on the accuracy and use of these
methods for transfer operations and any data comparing the Method 25A results to
Method 18 results.
As with process vents, Method 26 or proposed Method 26A is specified for
measuring halogens and hydrogen halides from scrubbers following combustors.
Proposed revisions to Method 26 and the proposed addition of Method 26A to 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A are discussed in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal
Register.
The proposed rule also allows the use of any test method or test results
validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A to
allow owners or operators greater flexibility.
c. Vapor tightness testing. The proposed transfer provisions require that
organic HAP's be loaded only into vehicles that are DOT certified, or vehicles that
have been determined to be vapor tight to ensure that emissions generated during
loading are captured. Previous regulations required vapor tightness testing for
tank trucks and railcars according to Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. This
requirement was reconsidered for the HON in light of updated DOT regulations. In
order to decrease the burden to SOCMI facilities and to tank truck and railcar
owners, the proposed rule allows either DOT certification in accordance with
pressure test requirements of 49 CFR 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for
railcars, or vapor tightness testing according to Method 27.
d. Monitoring. The proposed standard lists the parameters that must be {pg
62641} monitored for the common types of control devices (i.e., thermal
incinerators, catalytic incinerators, flares, boilers, process heaters, absorbers,
condensers, and carbon adsorbers). These parameters were selected because they are
good indicators of combustion or recovery device performance, and instruments to
monitor these parameters at the frequency required are available at a reasonable
cost. The rationale for their selection is fully explained in the proposal notice
for the SOCMI reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966-26969, June 29, 1990). The
proposed rule also allows the owner or operator to request to monitor other
parameters on a site-specific basis.
The proposed standard would require the owner or operator to establish site-
specific parameter ranges through the Notification of Compliance Status report and
operating permit. Site-specific parameter ranges accommodate site-specific
differences in control design and vent stream characteristics. The EPA requests
comment and data on whether an alternative range or minimum value of monitored
parameters should be set and, if so, what the values should be.
In previous rules, the frequency of monitoring parameters has been linked to
the duration of the loading cycle. In order to give flexibility, the proposed HON
rule gives owners and operators a choice whether to link the monitoring frequency
to duration of loading cycle or length of time the control device is operating. If
the owner or operator decides to base the monitoring program on the duration of the
loading cycle, measurements would have to be made every 15 minutes for loading
cycles of 3 hours or more and measurements would have to be made every 5 minutes
for loading cycles less than 3 hours in duration. If the owner or operator decides
to base the monitoring program on the length of time the control device is
operating, measurements would have to be made every 15 minutes for control device
operating periods of 3 hours or more, and measurements would have to be made every
5 minutes for control device operating periods less than 3 hours in duration. The
monitoring frequency option chosen must be recorded in the Notification of
Compliance Status report.
For vapor balancing systems, the proposed provisions require an annual visual
inspection and a test using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The purpose of
these provisions is to ensure that there are no leaks in the vapor balancing
system.
E. Selection of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operations Provisions
1. Selection of Format
The provisions for controlling air emissions from Group 1 wastewater streams
are a combination of equipment, operational, work practice, and emission standards.
The rationale for choosing the format of these provisions is discussed below.
a. Transport and handling equipment. Several formats were considered in
developing the proposed provisions for transport and handling equipment. These
formats included a numerical emission standard, and an equipment standard with the
work practices necessary to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the
equipment.
Although considered first, it was determined that a numerical standard would
not be feasible because it would be difficult to capture and measure emissions from
this equipment for the purpose of evaluating compliance. Due to the number of
openings and possible emission points, accurate measurement would require enclosure
of the entire airspace around a piece of equipment. This would not be practical for
numerous equipment components.
The second format considered was an equipment standard. Since the intent of the
standard is to capture all emissions from transport and handling equipment, an
equipment standard is appropriate. The best method for controlling emissions is to
require the installation and proper maintenance of roofs, covers, lids, and
enclosures on vessels and tanks.
Based on the evaluation of these formats, a combination of equipment standards
and work practices was selected for transport and handling equipment. The proposed
provisions would require that emissions from wastewater transport and handling
equipment be controlled from the point of wastewater generation through the
treatment system. Equipment used to control emissions would include covers, lids,
roofs, and enclosures designed to eliminate emissions. Proper work practices are
needed to ensure that the equipment will control emissions. The proposed work
practices include periodic monitoring, inspection, and repair provisions. These
provisions were selected at action levels designed to minimize emissions, and are
consistent with past NSPS and NESHAP standards.
b. Reduction of volatile organic hazardous air pollutant concentration in the
wastewater streams. Two formats were considered in developing the proposed
standards for reduction of wastewater stream VOHAP concentration: a numerical
format, and an equipment design and operation format.
Five alternative numerical emission limit formats are proposed to provide
sources with a maximum degree of operational flexibility in complying with the
provisions. These emission limit formats are: (1) An overall percent reduction for
total VOHAP in the wastewater stream (existing sources); (2) percent reductions for
individually-speciated HAP's (new and existing sources); (3) an effluent
concentration limit for total VOHAP (existing sources); (4) effluent concentration
limits for individually-speciated HAP (new sources); and (5) a required mass
removal for HAP (new and existing sources). The rationale for providing alternative
emission limits based on both a percent reduction and an effluent concentration is
given below.
Percent reduction. The percent reduction format is based on the organic HAP
removal efficiency of a steam stripper; however, any treatment process that can
achieve the proposed efficiency can be used to comply with the standard. This
format was chosen because it is the best representation of control technology
performance.
A second alternative limit is based on the percent reduction for individually-
speciated HAP's. Some HAP compounds have low volatilities and cannot be removed as
easily by steam stripping as other compounds. Wastewater streams composed mostly of
compounds with low volatility may not be able to achieve the total HAP percent
reduction. Therefore, the organic HAP compounds have been grouped by Henry's Law
constants into three strippability groups. (Strippability refers to the predicted
removal efficiency of a compound using the design steam stripper specified in the
regulation.) Target percentage removals for HAP in each group have been developed.
Sources may choose to use this alternative emission limit. Because the objective of
the proposed regulation is to control air emissions of HAP's from wastewater
streams, and not to control HAP's in the wastewater streams, this approach will
result in adequate control of air emissions of organic HAP's within the range of
volatilities.
Effluent concentration. The effluent concentration limits are also based on the
performance of a steam stripper. Effluent concentration limits are provided as
alternatives to the percent reduction standard to allow compliance flexibility for
facilities required to treat wastewater streams having low organic HAP
concentrations. Requiring a {pg 62642} percent reduction standard alone for these
wastewater streams would not be reasonable. At very low concentrations, it is
technically much more difficult and costly to achieve the same level of percent
reduction.
Mass removal. Required mass removal is an alternative for combined wastewater
streams where Group 1 wastewater streams might be mixed with Group 2 wastewater
streams. It is based on the removal performance of a steam stripper for the
different strippability groups of compounds. The equations for computing required
mass removal are designed to require removal of only the VOHAP concentration
contributed by the Group 1 wastewater streams. The mass removal alternative was
provided in lieu of concentration limits because concentration limits could be
achieved by dilution and, therefore, no emission reduction would occur.
Equipment design and operation. Another regulatory format considered for
wastewater stream treatment was an equipment design and operation format. The
equipment standard consists of the installation of a steam stripper designed and
operated at specified parametric levels. The specifications for the steam stripper
were developed to provide a standard piece of equipment (with associated operating
conditions) that can achieve greater than 95 percent total HAP removal for most
wastewater streams, and greater than 99 percent for streams containing primarily
high volatility compounds.
This equipment format was included to provide an alternative means of
compliance that all sources would be able to use, while achieving the desired
emission reduction. In addition, the monitoring requirements for the design steam
stripper require much less effort on the part of the owner or operator. Thus, this
equipment design and operation standard provides an alternative with fewer
performance testing requirements.
c. Vapor recovery or destruction devices. An emission standard is generally
appropriate for vapor recovery and destruction devices used to control vapor
streams containing HAP from transport, handling, and treatment equipment. The
rationale for an emission limit (percent reduction or outlet concentration format)
for this equipment was discussed previously in the sections titled ''Selection of
Format'' for process vents and transfer racks.
A weight-percent reduction of 95 percent is proposed for all types of devices
except flares. The 95 percent efficiency level will allow the use of product
recovery devices, and thus encourage product recovery and pollution prevention. Two
alternative formats are also proposed for combustion devices other than flares: An
outlet volume concentration of 20 ppmv, or a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds
and a minimum temperature of 760 degrees C (1400 degrees F).
For flares, an equipment standard with stated equipment and operating
specifications is being proposed as the format because it is very difficult to
measure emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
2. Selection of Performance Tests, Monitoring Requirements, and Test Methods
a. Wastewater stream concentration and flow determination. Two important
parameters must be quantified initially and whenever process changes are made to
determine whether a process wastewater stream is a Group 1 or Group 2 stream. These
parameters are the annual wastewater quantity for a stream and the VOHAP
concentration of HAP's in the stream. The VOHAP concentration can be quantified as
a flow-weighted annual average for total VOHAP or for individually-speciated HAP's.
Several methods can be used to determine wastewater quantity. These methods
include using knowledge about the capacity of the wastewater-generating process or
the waste management unit, and using measurements that are representative of
maximum annual wastewater generation rates. Knowledge-based methods are allowed to
provide flexibility and to provide less expensive alternatives than actual annual
measurement if the appropriate information is available.
For quantifying the VOHAP concentration of the wastewater streams, three
methods are available: (1) Knowledge of the wastewater streams, (2) bench scale or
pilot scale test data, or (3) physical measurements of total VOHAP or individually-
speciated VOHAP concentrations. Again, the three methods have been allowed to
provide flexibility and to provide less expensive alternatives than actual
measurement if the appropriate information is available.
If the actual VOHAP concentration of the wastewater stream is measured, the
regulation specifies that the procedures in proposed Method 305 (''Measurement of
Individual Volatile Organics in Wastewater''), accompanying this package, must be
used. This method is a laboratory test method for the measurement of emission
potential of individual volatile organics in wastewater. It is based on a
combination of Methods 25D and 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 305 may be
used in conjunction with calculations and procedures outlined in Sec. 63.144 of
subpart G to determine VOHAP average concentration.
To allow owners or operators flexibility, the proposed rule also allows the use
of analysis methods which measure organic HAP concentrations in the wastewater
streams, in conjunction with Method 301. The concentrations of the individual
organic HAP compounds measured in the water may be corrected by multiplying each
concentration by the compound-specific fraction measured factor in Table 13 of Sec.
63.144 of subpart G. This procedure will give an estimate of the volatile portion
of the HAP which would be measured if the purge-and-trap procedure in proposed
Method 305 (or Method 25D) were used. Method 301 provides a protocol for validating
the accuracy of any alterative test method chosen by a facility in lieu of the
methods specified by the regulation. The proposed rule also specifies procedures
for determining the source-wide annual VOHAP loading.
Also being proposed today is Method 304, ''Method for the Determination of the
Biodegradation Rates of Organic Compounds.'' This method is a laboratory test
method for the measurement of biodegradation rates of organic compounds and the
calculation of biodegradation rate constants. Method 304 is required to be used in
conjunction with calculations and procedures outlined in Sec. 63.145 of subpart G
to demonstrate compliance of properly operated biological treatment units.
b. Performance tests. Initial performance tests for control of Group 1
wastewater streams are not required by the proposed rule. For treatment processes
and control devices, facilities have the choice of using either performance tests
or engineering calculations to demonstrate the compliance of those units with the
standards. Engineering calculations, supported by the appropriate documentation,
have been allowed to provide a less costly alternative to that of actual testing.
The proposed rule includes treatment process performance test procedures for
the effluent concentration, percent reduction, and required mass removal standards.
These test procedures involve measurements of total VOHAP concentration or
individually-speciated VOHAP concentrations, depending on the standard for which
compliance is being demonstrated. Similar to measurements of VOHAP concentration
used to determine applicability, these measurements may be made using: (1) {pg
62643} Proposed Method 305 to quantify total VOHAP or individually-speciated VOHAP
concentrations, (2) Method 25D alone to quantify VO as a surrogate for total VOHAP,
or (3) any other method for which the results are validated using Method 301.
A performance test is not specified for the design steam stripper; installation
of the specified equipment, along with monitoring to show attainment of the
specified operating parameter levels, demonstrates compliance with the equipment
design and operation provisions.
A vent stream control device performance test procedure is also specified by
the proposed rule. Method 18 may be used to measure the organic content of the
vapor stream entering and exiting the control device. Alternatively, any other
method may be used if the results are validated using Method 301.
All transport and handling systems and closed vent systems used to control
emissions from them must be evaluated initially and at annual intervals using
Method 21 to determine the presence of HAP-containing VOC fugitive emissions.
Method 21 incorporates the use of a portable hydrocarbon detector to measure the
concentration of VOC's. Method 21 is used to test compliance in several standards
in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 and represents the best available method for detecting
fugitive emissions from these sources. The organic compounds measured by the
hydrocarbon detector are not necessarily HAP's. However, if HAP's are contained in
the transport, handling, and control equipment being tested, Method 21 is the best
procedure available for providing an indication of fugitive HAP emissions.
c. Monitoring requirements. The proposed process wastewater provisions include
requirements for periodic monitoring and inspections to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the control system and continued compliance.
Waste management units. These units are required to be visually inspected
semiannually for improper work practices and control equipment failures which may
potentially be a source of emissions. The equipment must also be tested annually
for the presence of leaks.
Wastewater treatment units. Monthly monitoring of effluent streams or influent
and effluent streams will be required to ensure compliance with the numerical
limits. As an alternative, continuous monitoring of parameters that indicate proper
system operation can be used. When continuous monitoring is employed, daily
inspection of monitoring records is required.
If the wastewater treatment units used to comply with the provisions has any
openings such as doors and hatches, initial and semiannual inspections will be
required to verify that the system is being properly operated without emissions. If
a design steam stripper is used to comply with the requirements, continuous
monitoring of the operating parameters listed in the regulation will be required.
Continuous monitoring is necessary to ensure proper operation of the stripper, and
therefore maximize emission reductions.
Closed vent systems and control devices. With the exception of a non-
regenerative carbon adsorber, continuous monitoring will be required for all
control devices. The monitoring equipment, parameters, and frequency of monitoring
for each control device are given. Monitoring is necessary to ensure control
devices continue to be properly operated and maintained. The parameters were
selected because they are good indicators of control device performance, and
instruments are available at a reasonable cost to monitor these parameters. Each
control device is required to have specific types of monitoring equipment as
itemized in the regulation. Other parameters may be monitored upon approval from
the Administrator in accordance with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.143(d)
of subpart G.
Continuous monitoring requirements were selected because they are known to
result in optimum control device performance. A nonregenerative carbon adsorber
requires different frequencies because the carbon bed must be replaced at regular
intervals.
For collection systems transporting vapors to any device, there are two
alternatives for ensuring that the collected vapors actually reach the control
device without being diverted to the atmosphere. One is use of flow indicators in
bypass lines that could divert the vent stream. These would produce continuous
records. An alternative is the use of sealed or locked valves to prevent diversion.
In this case, monthly inspection of the valves is required to ensure the integrity
of the seals or locks, instead of continuous monitoring.
3. Review of Technical Considerations Underlying Selection Process for Process
Wastewater Provisions
Industry representatives have expressed a number of concerns with EPA's basic
approach to estimating and controlling emissions, and estimating control costs. The
overall view of industry is that emission estimates are overstated and control
costs are understated. Underlying these overall opinions are a number of technical
issues on the characterization of the industry, the emission models, and the
assumptions in the cost analysis. This section of the notice presents summaries of
these technical issues and requests comments and data on these issues.
Consequently, there may be changes to the emission estimation and control cost
methodologies. The final rule will be based on consideration of the revised
estimates.
a. Physical/chemical properties of HAP's. One concern, raised by industry
representatives, is the range of required removal efficiencies of HAP's within each
strippability group in Table 9 of subpart G entitled Organic HAP Strippability
Groups and Target Removal Efficiencies. The removal efficiencies for the compounds
were predicted based on physical and chemical properties of the chemicals, the
design steam stripper conditions, etc. The compounds were grouped with others
having similar removal efficiencies and then each group was assigned a target
removal efficiency. As a result, three strippability groups were formed. The target
removal efficiency for each strippability group is: Strippability Group A, 99
percent; Strippability Group B, 95 percent; and Strippability Group C, 70 percent.
The concern is that the ranges represented in each strippability group could
hinder a compliance demonstration for specific HAP's that cannot individually
attain removal efficiencies at the level assigned to the strippability group. This
could result because each strippability group comprises several HAP's and each HAP
in each strippability group does not necessarily have the same removal efficiency
that is assigned to the strippability group. For example, the removal efficiency
that is achievable for a particular HAP in Strippability Group B might be 92
percent, while the target removal efficiency for Strippability Group B is 95
percent. The EPA is considering whether it is more appropriate to develop more
strippability groups with smaller ranges of removal efficiencies in each group, or
to assign an individual target removal efficiency for each HAP.
To make the determination of whether to revise the strippability groups,
additional information is needed for the current physical/chemical properties data
base. Specifically, the information needed includes: (1) Experimental data and
documentation for Henry Law's constants at 25 degrees C and 100 degrees C; (2)
documentation (e.g., reaction kinetics) for HAP's that cannot readily exist in
wastewater (e.g., due to rapid hydrolysis); and (3) documentation of HAP's that are
difficult to remove by steam stripping. This information would be compared against
the documentation EPA used to derive the fraction emitted values and strippability
factors used in the development of the proposed regulation. The EPA requests that
commenters provide data on the items listed above.
b. Scenarios and modeling emissions. As part of the technical basis for
estimating emissions, EPA developed three scenarios representing SOCMI wastewater
collection and treatment systems. Equilibrium and mass transfer equations were used
to model the emissions from the waste management units (e.g., individual drain
systems, wastewater tanks, biological treatment units, etc.) in each of the
scenarios. These scenarios and models are discussed in section V.A. of this
preamble, in the BID, and in the document ''Industrial Wastewater Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions- Background Information for BACT/LAER Determinations'' (EPA-
450/3-90- 004).
Industry representatives questioned whether the scenarios are representative of
SOCMI wastewater collection and treatment systems. Specifically, industry
representatives pointed out that many facilities have installed traps on drains and
seals on other waste management units, therefore controlling some air emissions
from the systems. In response to these concerns, CMA developed an alternative
scenario based on input from CMA member companies and provided it to EPA; however,
the documentation for the scenario is not complete enough to provide a complete
evaluation of how well it represents systems used at SOCMI facilities.
In order to assess the scenario best representing the industry's wastewater
collection and treatment systems, EPA requests information characterizing these
systems as they are typically found at SOCMI facilities. If such additional
documentation can be provided on the industry as a whole, EPA will consider
revising the scenarios used as part of the basis of the proposed rule.
Because EPA may revise the scenarios and because industry representatives have
expressed concerns about some of the models used for estimating emissions from
waste management units, EPA will be reevaluating some models between proposal and
promulgation. Revisions to the models will reflect technical issues. The EPA
requests results of studies measuring air emissions from waste management units,
especially individual drain systems (e.g., drains, manholes, sumps, and junction
boxes) as well as wastewater tanks and biological treatment units.
c. Point of generation. The proposed rule requires that the owner or operator
of a facility determine which process wastewater streams are Group 1 or Group 2.
This determination is based on concentration and flow rate. The concentration and
flow rate are determined by: (1) Measurements taken at the point of generation; or
(2) calculations based on process knowledge or measurements not taken at the point
of generation, and adjusted to estimate concentration and flow rate at the point of
generation. Industry has commented that: (1) There are difficulties with
characterizing the flow rate and concentration at the point of generation of a
wastewater stream; and (2) the concentration and flow rate should be determined at
the first air- water interface (e.g., a process sump). Industry representatives
have stated that many newer chemical process units use complex piping systems that
convey wastewater directly to collection tanks or sumps, making it impractical or
potentially impossible to measure flow rate and concentration for each individual
stream. Furthermore, industry representatives have stated that: (1) Engineering
estimates using process knowledge are possible, but are difficult due to the
considerable variations in the process, especially batch operations; and (2)
material balance calculations would be most appropriate but may not be accurate
enough when the number of streams and process variables become large.
The basic foundation of the proposed provisions for process wastewater is to
identify wastewater streams for control and treatment based on action levels at
their point of generation, prior to dilution and air emissions losses. This
approach, which is also discussed in Section VI.B.4 of this notice, focuses control
efforts on the streams with the highest loadings. If dilution prior to
determination of the need to control is allowed by changing the location of the
point of generation, some streams that could have been treated cost-effectively
would not be treated and some dilute streams that were mixed with more concentrated
streams would be controlled less cost-effectively. The EPA believes that sufficient
flexibility for compliance is in the proposed wastewater provisions without the
need to change the point of generation. For example, the owner or operator may
elect to use the alternative process unit compliance option. This compliance option
allows mixing of process wastewater streams from the same process unit and does not
require a concentration and flow rate determination at the point of generation
unless the owner or operator wishes to demonstrate that certain streams are Group 2
streams. Comments are requested on the difficulties that could be experienced from
the requirement to determine wastewater stream characteristics at the point of
generation. Commenters opposed to determining characteristics at the point of
generation should suggest alternative approaches to achieve the same result.
d. Wastewater tanks. The proposed provisions require wastewater tanks storing
Group 1 wastewater to be equipped with a fixed roof and a control device or a
floating roof with specific rim seals and deck fittings. Comments have been
received stating that for some wastewater streams, a fixed roof alone would achieve
effective control and the control device would not be necessary.
The EPA is considering establishing a threshold based on the total partial
pressure of the HAP's in process wastewater stored in effected tanks or covered
basins. The owner or operator of a wastewater tank storing Group 1 wastewater with
a total HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to the threshold would be
required to equip the tank with an internal or external floating roof or a closed
vent system with a 95 percent efficient control device. The owner or operator of a
wastewater tank storing Group 1 wastewater with a total HAP partial pressure less
than the threshold would be required to use only a fixed cover. The threshold would
not apply to wastewater tanks used as treatment processes. One option being
considered for the partial pressure threshold is the pressure for the proposed
provisions for storage vessels.
e. Biological treatment technologies. While biological treatment units and
other technologies may be used to comply with the HON, they must achieve a
comparable control efficiency as the reference control technology, which has been
proposed to be a design steam stripper. Concerns have been raised that EPA's
analysis of the wastewater component of the floor did not reflect industry
practice. Industry has stated that biological treatment units should be given more
serious consideration as reference control technology. Two concerns have been
raised by industry representatives:
1. Do well-operated and maintained biological treatment units in {pg 62645}
conjunction with trapped individual drain systems define the wastewater component
of the source-wide floor?
2. Is an appropriate reference control technology for biodegradable HAP's a
biological treatment unit instead of the design steam stripper?
As previously described, EPA's analysis of the floor level of control was based
on existing air emission standards for each kind of emission point. Although EPA
was aware that some degree of control of air emissions resulted from compliance
with other regulations under CWA, OSHA, and RCRA, EPA did not have the information
needed to evaluate the resulting emissions control efficiency that was being
achieved. Specifically, information was lacking on the extent to which facilities
used vapor suppression systems in the individual drain systems and waste management
units. Late in the development of the wastewater provisions, the chemical industry
reported that traps and seals are commonly used on components in the individual
drain systems (e.g., which include drains, junction boxes, and manholes) and that
many treatment components such as ponds and tanks are covered as well.
If current industry practice for biodegradable HAP's is to suppress air
emissions down to the biological treatment unit, then the existing analysis of the
source-wide floor may include an underestimate of the control efficiency being
achieved for wastewater. Consequently, EPA plans to evaluate the performance
achieved by individual drain systems and biological treatment systems at existing
facilities and then to reassess the source-wide floor. To do this analysis, a
number of technical issues need to be resolved. Specific issues that must be
resolved include: (1) Appropriate biokinetic data; (2) appropriate models to
predict rates of volatilization; and (3) the best 12 percent of design and
operating practices representative of the industry. The EPA expects to meet with
industry representatives and other interested parties during the period between
proposal and promulgation to obtain the necessary data and to resolve these and
other technical issues. These issues are discussed briefly elsewhere in this
section of the notice.
The degree of control achieved with biological treatment systems depends on the
biodegradability of the compounds and the system design. In some cases, high
removal efficiencies have been reported, and industry sources have claimed that
control performance for all degradable organics is generally quite good with
overall removals exceeding 80 to 85 percent of the volatiles. Information on
performance and characteristics of biological treatment units (e.g., retention
time, aeration rate, aeration gas, mixed liquor suspended solids) will be needed
from as many SOCMI sources as possible.
The EPA will evaluate control options based on biological treatment and
emission containment in individual drain systems. In order to evaluate biological
treatment unit control options, additional information on individual drain systems
and other information is required. If the results of EPA's evaluation indicate that
biological treatment and emission containment in individual drain systems should be
selected as a reference control technology, a supplemental proposal would be
published in the Federal Register. Comments are requested on this issue and should
address the specific concerns and data needs discussed in this section. Specific
data EPA will need to evaluate biological treatment as a reference control
technology are:
1. HAP-specific efficiency of biological treatment units in terms of mass
destruction versus volatilization;
2. Design and operating parameters to attain a high degree of destruction;
3. Data on biodegradation rates for all types of systems;
4. Collection system design, specifically, the number and type of treatment
units and their configuration;
5. Control devices used on treatment units (e.g., equalization basins and
primary clarifiers) that occur prior to the biological treatment unit, and their
efficiency for the control of air emissions; and
6. Identification of HAP's that do not readily biodegrade (e.g., carbon
tetrachloride and vinyl chloride).
It should be noted that for non-biodegradable HAP's, the design steam stripper
would remain the reference control technology.
The EPA is also evaluating biological treatment unit models and the biorate
constant data base not only to reassess floor and reference control technology
decisions, but also to ensure the most accurate results possible for compliance
demonstration. Industry representatives have stated that kinetic constants obtained
from different experiments for an individual chemical should not be used to predict
biological treatment unit performance. However, not all the literature and data
reporting experimental results are extensive enough to cover the range of constants
necessary as inputs for the models that predict biological treatment performance.
To reassess the data base used in the models, EPA requests additional data on
biokinetic rate constants and will use the most scientifically defensible constants
in the data base.
The EPA will also compare the EPA-developed model, WATER7, for predicting
biological treatment unit performance to other models such as PAVE, BASTE, and
TOXCHEM, to determine if the results are similar. For models having results similar
to WATER7 results, EPA may allow their use in compliance demonstration. A summary
of the models EPA will evaluate is located in Table 5.1 entitled ''Computer-Based
Fate and Transport Models'' (Docket A-90-23, section II-B).
f. Test methods. The proposed wastewater provisions require use of Method 304,
Determination of Biodegradation Rates of Organic Compounds, and modeling with
WATER7, or another approved model, to predict HAP removal achieved in a biological
treatment unit. The EPA is considering allowing WATER7 or other approved models to
be used without Method 304. With this approach, site-specific input would not be
used to derive the biodegradation rate or to establish parameter ranges. If models
are used without Method 304 inputs, the model parameters would be required to match
the biological treatment unit's operating parameters, such as effluent
concentration. If the two sets of parameters are not consistent, the owner or
operator would be required to reestablish parameter ranges and derive the
biodegradation rate by running Method 304.
Comments concerning safety issues were also raised by industry representatives.
These safety issues have been addressed in proposed Method 304 by allowing
alternative types of heaters (immersion heaters were originally specified) and by
calling for headspace gas monitoring when formation of explosive gases is a
possible concern.
Another concern expressed is what triggers the need to perform Method 304 to
demonstrate compliance. While it is clear that an initial demonstration of the
biological treatment system's ability to biodegrade HAP's is necessary, it is not
explicitly stated in the proposed provisions whether or when subsequent
demonstrations are required. Examples of when Method 304 may be required to be run
after the initial demonstration are: (1) Addition of a new process unit to the
source or after a change in the characteristics of an existing process; (2)
scheduled checks at least once every five years; and (3) whenever a performance
test is required (e.g., {pg 62646} changes in established parameters or operation
of the biological treatment unit).
Proposed Method 305, Measurement of Individual Volatile Organics in Wastewater,
is the method developed by EPA to provide a relative measure of the volatile
organic emission potential of a waste or wastewater stream. Industry
representatives report that because facilities already use other methods developed
by EPA for Clean Water Act regulations to comply with their effluent discharge
permits, facility owners or operators may prefer to use these other methods to
demonstrate compliance with the HON. The proposed wastewater provisions allow any
EPA-approved method to be used. However, because Method 305 is the basis of the
concentration threshold for Group 1 wastewater in the proposed provisions, any
other EPA method used for applicability determination and compliance demonstration
will have to be validated in accordance with the procedures in sections 5.1 or 5.3
(as applicable) of Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The results from the
alternate method (if valid according to the procedures listed above) are then
adjusted according to the fraction measured (F sub m) values listed in Table 13 of
subpart G.
Industry representatives have suggested that preapproval of Methods 304 and 305
would streamline the validation approval process, benefiting both industry and the
regulatory authorities. Method 304 would be preapproved for specific apparatus
configurations; Method 305 would be preapproved for specific compounds or ranges
compounds for methods other than Method 305. The EPA agrees with this suggestion
and requests validation data. This data would be used to establish a data base for
public use on the EPA bulletin board system. The data base would list EPA methods
approved as alternates for Method 305 and the compounds and concentrations for
which the alternative method is valid (as defined by Method 301). Method 305 has a
set of established heating and purging requirements, but does allow the owner or
operator latitude in choosing sample stream trapping and analytical methodology as
long as the recovery criteria listed in the method are met. The EPA requests
information on trapping and analytical methodologies for specific compounds for
discussion in this data base.
The data base would also list sampling and analytical techniques for compounds
which are appropriate for use in the ''back half'' (i.e., the speciation portion)
of Method 305. These techniques would be suggested analytical systems for Method
305; the recovery requirements listed in Method 305 would still be required. The
EPA requests that data be submitted to Docket Number A-90-19 (see ADDRESSES) and to
Director, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
MD-14, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
F. Selection of Emissions Averaging Provisions
This section of the preamble presents the rationale for the proposed emissions
averaging provisions (described in Sec. 63.150 of subpart G) and the alternative
policies that were considered in developing these provisions.
As part of the EPA's general policy of encouraging the use of market-based
systems where they can be properly monitored and enforced, the Administrator is
proposing to allow sources the option of using emissions averaging to comply with
subpart G. Emissions averaging provides sources the flexibility to comply in the
least costly manner while still maintaining a regulation that is workable and
enforceable. The rationale for the specific provisions of the emissions averaging
policy is detailed below.
1. The Scope of Emissions Averaging
The Administrator proposes to allow emissions averaging across all the emission
points, except equipment leaks, within a single new or existing source, as source
is defined for the SOCMI source category. As such, emissions from the following
kinds of emission points can be averaged: process vents, wastewater operations,
storage vessels, and transfer operations. The Administrator is proposing to allow
averaging across these 4 kinds of emission points in order to provide as much
flexibility as possible while maintaining an enforceable standard.
Equipment leaks are included in SOCMI sources, but they cannot be included in
emissions averages because: (1) The negotiated standard for equipment leaks has no
fixed performance level; and (2) no method currently exists for determining the
magnitude of allowable emissions to assign for leaks. Without a method to determine
the magnitude of allowable emissions to assign for equipment leaks, an averaging
policy that included equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce. When methods
are developed to assign allowable emission levels for particular leak points, EPA
will consider revising the HON to allow the inclusion of equipment leaks in
emissions averages.
As previously described, emissions averaging, and in particular the scope of
emissions averaging being proposed today, was selected to provide sources broad
flexibility in compliance with the HON. Emissions averaging, as proposed, is
designed to result in equal or lesser total emissions from any one source, compared
to point-by-point compliance with the HON. Though the proposed emissions averaging
policy does not specifically address the issue of toxicity, emissions averaging is
not designed to result in more toxic emissions than point-by-point compliance.
Owners and operators of SOCMI sources have an incentive to avoid increases in
emissions of highly toxic chemicals under emissions averaging because such
increases could result in additional controls being required after the subsequent
evaluation of the residual risk associated with individual sources and the source
category as a whole. Because the issue of calculating residual risk, under section
112(f) of the Act, comes up in the context of the HON, the EPA requests comment on
whether residual risk should be calculated on a plant-wide basis, on a source
category basis, or on the basis of some other reasonable alternative.
The issue of how averaging will influence the potential toxicity of emissions
from HON sources, and what EPA is considering in response to this issue, is further
discussed in section VII.F.8 of this notice.
In the future, EPA may regulate other industrial processes at SOCMI facilities
(e.g., polymers and resins manufacturing). The emission points in these other
industrial processes will not be part of the SOCMI source as defined in the
proposed rule. These points cannot be included in emissions averages with the
points comprising the sources in the SOCMI source category because the EPA
interpretation of the floor requirement in the Act prevents averaging across
sources. However, the EPA is seeking comment on a complementary legal
interpretation of sections 112(d) and 112(i) of the Act. This legal interpretation
is described in the following section.
2. Complementary Legal Interpretation for Broader Emissions Averaging
The EPA's proposed rule allows an averaging approach for HON-covered portions
of a plant. The EPA is also soliciting comment on a broader averaging alternative,
as set forth below. Significantly, this latter averaging scheme is not being
proposed as an alternative to the averaging approach, {pg 62647} described above.
Rather, the two approaches are entirely complementary. However, because the legal
issues posed by the broader averaging scheme differ appreciably from those
implicated by the more narrow averaging proposal, the EPA believes that a separate
discussion of the former is warranted.
The broad averaging alternative relies upon a legal theory which would permit
compliance with the HON MACT standard (or, for that matter, with any other MACT
standard to be developed by EPA) by averaging emissions from points located
anywhere within an entire contiguous facility, which contains HON-covered
processing units.
This alternative would differentiate between the term ''source in a category or
subcategory,'' used in section 112(d), and the term ''source,'' used in section
112(i). To begin with, it is a maxim of statutory construction that the use of
different words by Congress in two different subsections is not accidental and
reflects well thought- out Congressional intent. See, Sutherland Stat. Const. Sec.
46.06 (4th Ed.). Specifically, for purposes of establishing emissions standards
under subsection 112(d), Congress expected EPA to identify specific production
lines, pieces of equipment, etc., located within major stationary sources or area
sources, and to treat them as sources only for the purposes of subsections
112(d)(3)(A) and (B), i.e., for the purposes of determining what is the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing twelve percent of existing
sources or average emission limitation achieved by the five best performing
sources. Since the term source was used in subsection 112(d) for a distinct and
unique purpose, the relevant statutory language contains a qualifying set of words-
''in a category or subcategory''-appended to the word ''source.''
Significantly, in subsection 112(i), the relevant statutory language contains
the term ''source''-a fact that would allow EPA to conclude, for purposes of
subsection 112(i), that a source which must achieve compliance is a ''major
source'' which encompasses an entire plant. See, e.g., Chevron, U.S.A. Inc., versus
NRDC, 467 U.S. 837(1984). This reading is supported by the fact that the
definitions of statutory terms, set forth in subsection 112(a), contain the
traditional definitions of such terms as ''major source,'' and ''stationary
source.'' Under this construction, the statutory language ''any emissions standard,
limitation, or regulation promulgated under this section 112 and applicable to a
source'' describes all of the existing MACT standards, established under subsection
112(d), and applicable to a source, which contains within it ''sources in a
category or subcategory'' (i.e., production lines, pieces of equipment, etc.)
covered by such MACT standards.
The EPA also notes that, in its ''early reductions'' rule, it adopted a plant-
wide definition of source. See 56 FR 27342 (June 13, 1991)-an early indication that
the Agency believed that an entire contiguous facility could be considered to be a
source for purposes of qualifying for a 6 year extension of the MACT compliance
deadlines. The EPA is mindful of the fact that it has traditionally enjoyed wide
latitude in coming up with diverse definitions of the term ''source,'' depending on
what regulatory objectives were implicated, and EPA's considerable discretion in
this area has been affirmed by the courts. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., versus NRDC, 467
U.S. 837 (1984). The EPA solicits comment on the legal authority to adopt this
approach, and also requests comment on implementation considerations.
Under the broader averaging approach, EPA would make no changes in the way it
has identified categories and subcategories of sources in the HON and devised
appropriate emission standards for them, nor in the way it would prescribe future
emission standards for other emission categories or subcategories. For compliance
purposes, however, if an owner or operator does not wish to control a particular
HON-covered emission point to the level that would result in compliance with the
relevant HON emission standard, the extra emissions from that point could be offset
by emissions reductions greater than what is required by any standard then in
effect under Section 112 at one or more other emission points within the entire
stationary source. In addition, emissions averaging would be allowed across all the
emission points within the entire plant, including the SOCMI source category as
well as points not yet covered by any MACT standard.
As such, emissions from process vents, wastewater operations, storage vessels
and transfer operations could be averaged among themselves or with other emission
points within the entire stationary source, in order to provide as much flexibility
as possible. However, a distinction would be made between emission points
physically similar to emission points covered under the HON or any other MACT and
all other emission points. For the former, to participate in the averaging scheme,
they must comply with whatever compliance routines have been established under the
SOCMI HON or other relevant MACT. For the latter, to participate in averaging, the
source must petition EPA to establish an appropriate compliance routine. To be
sure, once EPA establishes such a compliance routine for any new type of emission
point, all similar emission points located within any sources can participate in
the averaging, so long as they use the EPA-approved compliance routine. The EPA
solicits comment also on how it would verify the baseline for unregulated emission
points, and how it would structure the averaging compliance process to assure the
standard as a whole remains enforceable. One possibility to consider would be to
use the average emissions from such emission points over some representative time
period as their baselines.
While equipment leaks are included in SOCMI sources, they cannot at this time
be included in emissions averages. Equipment leaks are not included because: (1)
The negotiated standard does not require any fixed performance level; and (2) no
practical method currently exists to verify performance. Under this alternative,
EPA would expeditiously develop methods to assign allowable emission levels to
particular leak points or groups of leak points, and would similarly develop
methods for calculating emissions from emission points not regulated by the HON.
The Administrator seeks comment on means to verify and document the emission
performance levels achieved for situations where equipment leaks are included in an
average. Commenters should include a description of the compliance verification
procedure that would be used and what data needs to be supplied to support the
suggested system. Comments are also requested on types of non-SOCMI emission points
that might be included in broader averages.
Under the broader approach, emission reductions from emission points not
covered by the HON would be usable to generate credits, subject to the previously
discussed limitations and any limitations added in any other MACT standard
applicable to the relevant emission points. Credits could be generated at any time
from non-HON emission points until they become subject to a MACT standard. When
they become subject to a MACT standard, the future value of reductions at those
emission points would be governed by the emission standards required by the new
MACT. Stated differently, the offsets available from such points would have to be
recomputed using the new {pg 62648} baseline established for them. Each future MACT
standard must contain a floor calculation. To the extent that points covered by
these later standards have already been controlled for purposes of participating in
an averaging scheme, that relates to the compliance with an earlier standard, the
floor for the later standard may be more stringent. As future MACT standards are
adopted, EPA would attempt to maximize averaging opportunities and therefore
minimize compliance delays and costs.
The EPA believes that the broad averaging scheme, described above, provides
significant policy benefits. To begin with, it would enable sources to achieve the
same environmental gains, as under the more narrow averaging proposal, but at
significantly reduced costs. Second, establishing MACT standards with a facility-
wide averaging program could result in the MACT ''floor'' for future standards
being tighter than would have been the case if the emission points outside of the
already covered MACT categories would have stayed uncontrolled. Last, but not
least, EPA believes that the utilization of the broad averaging scheme may result
in the discovery of emission points within facilities that otherwise might have
been overlooked by EPA and State regulators.
A factor that must be considered in implementing this approach is that it would
require a determination of the permissibility of allowing averages to emit a
different combination of pollutants than sources that meet MACT without averaging.
This concern is already being evaluated for VOC HAP's in the SOCMI source category.
The alternative approach might further complicate this issue by adding dissimilar
categories (e.g., industrial cooling towers) emitting dissimilar pollutants (e.g.,
chromium). Since the HON currently addresses only organic HAP's, significant
changes would be necessary to accommodate non-VOC HAP controls. To be sure, this
concern could be resolved by limiting trading under the broad averaging proposal to
only organic HAP's already covered by a MACT standard, but emitted anywhere within
the fenceline. As nonorganic HAP's become covered by subsequent MACT standards the
EPA will develop averaging regimes covering such pollutants.
To facilitate comment on this alternative, the EPA is setting forth below the
regulatory changes that would be necessary to implement it.
1. Section 63.100. Applicability and designation of source. Amend to add
paragraph (h), as follows:
''(h) subparts F, G, and H allow emissions averaging within the entire
stationary source subject to the requirements of this Part, including additional
information submittals and detailed credit/debit calculations.''
2. Section 63.101. Definitions. Amend as follows:
''Emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel, transfer
rack, wastewater stream, or equipment leak, and for purposes of emissions
averaging, any individual item of equipment within the stationary source.
''Stationary source means any building, structure, facility, or installation
which emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the ACT.
Building, structure, facility, or installation means all of the pollutant-emitting
activities which belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (or
persons under common control) except the activities of any vessel. Pollutant-
emitting activities shall be considered as part of the same industrial grouping if
they belong to the same Major Group (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as
described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 (National
Technical Information Service stock number PB 87-100012).''
3. Section 63.112. Emission limits. Amend paragraph (c), as follows:
''(c) Compliance with the emission standard in paragraph (a) or (b) shall be
demonstrated in one of the following two ways:
''(2) The owner or operator may elect to control different groups of emission
points with the stationary source to different levels than specified under Secs.
63.113 through 63.147 as long as the overall emissions reductions from the
stationary source equal or exceed the emission reduction required by Sec. 63.112.
''(i) Owners or operators using this emissions averaging compliance approach
must calculate their emission debits and credits for those emission points involved
in the emission average as specified in Sec. 63.150, develop an Implementation Plan
as required in Sec. 63.151, and comply with the general reporting requirements in
Sec. 63.152.
''(ii) Emission debits and credits must be calculated separately for new and
existing sources. New sources may be included in the same emission average as
existing sources. The determination of whether an emission point is part of a new
or existing source shall be made according to the provisions of subparts A and F of
this part.''
4. Section 63.150. Emissions Averaging Provisions.
a. Amend paragraph (c), as follows:
''(c) The following emission points can be credited in an emissions average to
offset use of controls less stringent than the reference technology on Group 1
emission points:
''(8) Any other emissions points within the stationary source except those
excluded from use as credits in an emissions average by a standard promulgated
under section 112.''
b. Amend paragraph (d), as follows:
''(d) The following emission points cannot be used to generate credits in
emission averaging:
''(1) Emission points subject to Secs. 63.113 through 63.149 already controlled
on or before (date of promulgation), except those that were controlled as part of
the section 112(i)(5) early reduction program, the 33/50 program, or a pollution
prevention program as described in paragraph (c) of this section. ''
c. Amend paragraph (e) as follows:
''(e) For all points included in an emission average, the owner or operator
shall:
''(2) Calculate credits for all emission points that are overcontrolled to
compensate for the debits using equations in paragraph (g). Emission points that
meet the criteria of paragraph (c) may be included in the credit calculation,
whereas those described in paragraph (d) shall not be included.
5. Section 63.151. Initial Notification and Implementation Plan.
''(d) For emission points included in an emission average, the following
information shall be provided in the Implementation Plan.
''(8.5) For each emission point included in the average of other than a process
vent, storage vessel, transfer rack or wastewater stream, the owner or operator
shall document the following information:
''(i) The information regarding emissions averaging required by any other
standard proposed under section 112; or
''(ii) Information reasonably similar to information regarding emissions
averaging required by any standard proposed under section 112. The Administrator
may request any reasonably related supplemental information within 30 days after
submission.''
The EPA further solicits comment on the legal and policy implications of
allowing averaging between new and existing sources within a plant in reliance upon
the legal interpretation outlined above. An alternative approach would be for the
EPA to rely upon an interpretation of section 112(d) under which new and existing
sources would be considered as comprising separate subcategories within a category.
The EPA solicits comment on this interpretation in light of the approach to
identifying subcategories that the EPA followed publishing the list of categories
and subcategories required under section 112(c) of the Act (57 FR 31576, July 16,
1992).
3. Credits
Under the proposed emissions averaging system, a source can get credits for
emission reductions achieved after passage of the 1990 amendments to the Act if
they result in greater emission reductions than required by the proposed rule for
the relevant points. {pg 62649} There are three ways a source might generate
credits: (1) Using control equipment that EPA agrees has a higher efficiency than
the reference control technology on a Group 1 point; (2) controlling a Group 2
point; and (3) using a pollution prevention measure on a Group 2 point or using a
pollution prevention measure that results in lower emissions than use of the
reference control technology alone on a Group 1 point.
In addition to the three ways of generating credits, the EPA is considering the
feasibility and desirability of allowing credits for recycling activities which can
be clearly shown to have resulted in quantifiable emission reductions. The EPA
envisions that sources would be required to account for all emissions to the
atmosphere during the entire recycling process and those emissions would reduce the
amount of credits attributable to the recycling activity. At this point, the EPA
has not determined which specific recycling activities can be shown to meet these
requirements. The Agency intends to investigate this potential further and is
therefore soliciting comments on what activities would qualify for this treatment
and on procedures for quantifying credits and procedures for ensuring that all
atmospheric emissions are accounted for. The EPA is interested in providing credits
for recycling if the emission reduction can be quantified and made enforceable. The
EPA is willing to include provisions in the final rule for crediting recycling if
sufficient information on quantification, methodology, and enforceable mechanisms
for such recycling measures is received during the public comment period.
a. Reference efficiency ratings. Sources cannot use a type of control equipment
or pollution prevention measure to generate credits unless the source can
demonstrate the efficiency or level of emission reduction achievable through the
measure from its use over time. For innovative control technologies that are
different either in use or design from the reference controls, the effectiveness of
the technologies must be demonstrated to the EPA or the operating permit authority
prior to their use for compliance with the proposed rule.
If the technology in question would be used for credit in no more than three
applications in a given facility, the operating permitting authority can assign it
a control efficiency as part of the permit review. However, if the permitting
authority concludes that the technology has broad applicability or the source
wishes to use it in more than three applications, the EPA will assign its control
efficiency and publish a description of the technology in the Federal Register so
that it is available for widespread use in averaging.
This process is being proposed to encourage innovation in control technologies
by establishing a relatively low approval hurdle for technologies with limited
applicability and potential for return to the developer while maintaining a
thorough federal review for technologies with the potential for broad
applicability, widespread use and high returns. In addition, this process ensures
that information about significant advancements in technology will reach a wide and
varied audience, thus encouraging further innovation. The reference efficiency
assigned by EPA to a new type of control equipment would be based on the level of
emission reductions that could be expected from that equipment if it were in use in
a variety of situations. The EPA has established this process because subpart G of
the HON is a national standard and the reference efficiencies for new controls must
be established at a level that can be met nationwide.
In general, sources cannot get emissions averaging credit for the use of
control equipment above its designated reference efficiency rating. For example, if
the EPA considers a certain control to have a 98 percent control efficiency, the
source cannot get credit for operating it above that efficiency. There is an
exception to this policy for storage vessels controlled with closed vent systems
with a 98-percent efficient control device and for process vents on which the
source has demonstrated to the EPA that control can achieve 99.9 percent control.
In addition, for these sources to get credit for the 99.9 percent control, the
source must submit and the EPA must approve a continuous emissions monitoring plan
for the relevant process vent and its control.
The general policy of reference control efficiency ratings has been established
because the reference efficiency levels are set at the minimum level of emissions
reduction that is generally achieved by the control device. Many sources may, by
simply applying the device, achieve greater emissions reduction than predicted by
the technology's reference efficiency rating. To provide credits in this situation
without requiring certain demonstrations of a higher efficiency would give the
source a windfall and result in a net increase in emissions over the level that
would be expected if there were no emissions averaging.
This policy is fair to the sources, since the emission credits and the emission
debits would usually be based on the same reference efficiency ratings. Emission
debits, the amount of emissions that the source must make up for not controlling a
Group 1 point, are based on the efficiency of the point's reference control
technology. A source is not required to test the emission point to determine the
level of control that would be achieved in practice if the reference control
technology were to be applied at that point. If such testing were required, then
the amount of emission debits for a particular point would, in many cases, be
greater.
In addition, to grant credits for the small amount of emission difference that
might occur above a reference efficiency would lead to significant enforcement
problems. It would be very difficult to ensure that, on a continuous basis, a
technology achieves an emissions reduction above its reference efficiency rating.
It would be even more difficult, if not impossible, for sources to prove to
inspectors that they are in fact achieving these higher levels of efficiency. Use
of a reference control efficiency for each control technology allows inspectors to
ensure compliance merely by checking that the equipment is in place and operating
properly.
Use of reference efficiency ratings helps ensure that the emissions averaging
system will result in the same or better emission reductions as a rule that does
not allow emissions averaging. In addition, the use of reference efficiency ratings
simplifies the emissions averaging system, thus making it enforceable.
The system to provide higher nominal efficiency ratings for the storage vessels
controlled with closed vent systems with a control device and for process vent
reference control technologies in certain circumstances is being proposed to
encourage the use of emissions averaging, the improved operation and maintenance of
the reference controls, and expanded use of continuous emissions monitoring. The
proposed rule is essentially a performance standard and does not require the
installation of any particular controls. In fact, sources are encouraged to meet
the performance level of the standard using the least costly method available,
including emissions averaging. However, the level of the standard is based on the
minimum level of control anticipated with application and proper operation and
maintenance of the reference control technologies. The reference efficiency
assigned to each of the reference controls also contributes to {pg 62650} the
determination of the level of the standard.
Some sources may be able to achieve higher levels of emissions reduction than
the reference control efficiencies while using the reference control technologies
because of the particular characteristics of their emission streams. Some would
argue that this higher level of control, over the efficiency assigned to a
reference control technology, should be allowed to be used for emissions averaging
credits. The EPA agrees that significantly higher emission control levels should be
credited, but believes that marginally higher levels should not. As a result, the
EPA is proposing to allow higher nominal efficiency ratings only for those
applications of process vent reference controls that can be demonstrated to achieve
99.9 percent control and controlled closed vent systems on storage vessels that
achieve 98 percent control. In addition, the source would be required to institute
an EPA-approved plan for continuous emissions monitoring at the point assigned the
higher nominal efficiency for the reference control.
The proposed rule does not allow a source to get a higher nominal efficiency
rating for the reference controls for transfer operations, wastewater operations,
or storage vessels (except controlled closed vent systems) because the technologies
are not as well characterized. The EPA is seeking comment on how a source might use
a reference control for a transfer operation, wastewater operation, or storage
vessel to create control more stringent than the reference efficiency rating, and
how monitoring might be used to ensure that the extra control was achieved on a
continuous basis. In addition, the EPA is seeking comment on the inclusion of this
system for assigning process vent reference controls a higher nominal efficiency
rating.
b. Pollution prevention credits. Credits can also be generated through use of a
pollution prevention measure. For the purposes of the proposed rule, the EPA is
referring to any pollution prevention activities described in the Agency's
Pollution Prevention Strategy (56 FR 7849) that are applicable to this industry.
The following activities are included in the description of pollution prevention:
substitution of non-toxic for toxic feedstocks in making a product; alterations to
the production process to reduce the volume of materials released to the
environment; equipment modifications; housekeeping measures; and in-process,
recycling that returns waste materials directly to production as raw materials.
Other pollution prevention approaches that are identified in the EPA's Pollution
Prevention Strategy and are applicable to this industry would also be acceptable
for credit. The EPA solicits comment on the specific pollution prevention
approaches identified in the strategy that might be applicable to this industry.
The EPA proposes that shutdowns (i.e., permanent closures, not maintenance
turnarounds) cannot be used to generate credits, even if they are part of an Early
Reduction commitment under section 112(i)(5) of the Act, unless they are part of a
change that qualifies as a pollution prevention measure as defined in the EPA's
Pollution Prevention Strategy (56 FR 7849). One example would be if a source
converts a chemical manufacturing process in an emissions averaging program from a
HAP-using process to a non-HAP- using process. The EPA solicits comment on whether
pollution prevention credit should be granted for cases in which a source reduces
its emissions by switching from production of one chemical to another as well as
the cases in which a source reduces its emissions through pollution prevention
measures but continues to produce the same chemical.
Pollution prevention measures will be allowed to generate credits equal to the
difference between the emissions allowed by the rule for the previous process after
control and the emissions from the modified production process. This credit would
be allowed each month the modified production process is in place. The amount of
credit would be adjusted according to the actual production volume of the relevant
production process for that month.
If a pollution prevention measure is used as a means of compliance with the
rule for Group 1 points, then the activity would not generate credits unless the
control efficiency of the pollution prevention measure is greater than the
efficiency of the reference control technology. For example, if a process change
results in a reduction in the mass rate of HAP emissions from a Group 1 process
vent, such a change would only generate credits if the emission reduction were
greater than 98 percent. However, if the process change resulted in a 98 percent
reduction, equal to the reference control technology, the pollution prevention
measure could be used to meet the standard but would not generate a credit or
debit. See section VII.F.4, ''Credits for Previous Actions'' of this notice for an
example regarding credits for pollution prevention.
The EPA believes that the above method of valuing credits will offer industry
flexibility to cost effectively comply with the HON through emissions averaging and
achieve a level of emission reduction that is the same or better than a rule that
does not allow emissions averaging.
4. Credits for Previous Actions
To utilize emissions averaging, an owner or operator must first determine the
baseline level of control on those emission points that will be included in the
average. Control equipment is considered part of the source's baseline level of
control if it was in place before the passage of the 1990 amendments to the Act
(November 15, 1990). Generally, this equipment can be used to meet the control
level at an individual emission point, but not to generate emission credits for
averages. However, sources can get emission credits for a control action taken
before the 1990 amendments to the Act (November 15, 1990) if the action achieves
more emission reduction than the standard requires for the relevant point and: (1)
It is a pollution prevention measure, taken after 1987, qualifying under the
Agency's Pollution Prevention Strategy (56 FR 7849); (2) it is being used to
satisfy a 33/50 commitment as described in EPA Publication Number EPA-741-K- 92-
001; or (3) it is an Early Reductions commitment, other than an equipment shutdown,
approved under the proposed 40 CFR 63.70 through 63.81 (56 FR 27338). Controls
applied as part of an Early Reductions commitment can begin to generate credits
only after the relevant point becomes subject to the HON, that is after the
expiration of the 6-year extension for the Early Reductions source.
The proposed rule does not allow most actions taken before passage of the 1990
amendments to be used to generate emission credits because such reductions would
have occurred anyway, for reasons unrelated to the 1990 amendments or the proposed
rule. If EPA allowed these actions to generate emission credits, then the source
would be able to generate more emission debits and, thus, more total emissions.
Emissions averaging is a method for complying with subpart G and should not result
in more emissions than the other compliance options.
The proposed rule allows credit for controls put in place since the passage of
the 1990 amendments for two reasons. First, since the 1990 amendments require the
promulgation of emission standards, many sources have begun putting in place
controls in anticipation of upcoming regulations. If {pg 62651} these controls
could not be credited for averaging, these sources would be at a disadvantage
relative to other sources that chose to postpone emission reductions until required
by rule. Thus, allowing credit for controls put in place since, and presumably
because of, passage of the amendments creates a more equitable emissions averaging
system.
The second reason for the policy on crediting existing controls has to do with
the precedent set by this proposed rule. This proposed rule describes the first
application of emission averaging for compliance with standards developed under
section 112(d) of the Act. Many industry groups have interpreted, and will continue
to interpret this proposed rule as an indication of the types of requirements that
will be incorporated into future standards. By proposing the passage of the 1990
amendments as the date for determining the source's baseline level of control, the
Administrator is setting a precedent that will encourage sources in other source
categories to initiate emission reductions before their standards are developed.
Selection of any date specifically associated with the proposed rule, such as the
date of proposal or promulgation, would not be interpreted as a clear indication of
the Administrator's intentions for future standards.
The EPA is proposing to make limited exceptions to the general policy of not
allowing credit for reductions achieved before passage of the amendments in three
cases, the Early Reductions program, the 33/50 program, and pollution prevention.
These exceptions are proposed to set a precedent that encourages future
participation in these voluntary emissions reductions programs by sources in other
source categories and to reward innovative pollution prevention efforts. The EPA
believes these actions are beneficial to the environment and wishes to encourage
sources to undertake them.
The following two examples illustrate the policy regarding credit for previous
actions. In the first case, a Group 2 process vent was controlled with an
incinerator before November 15, 1990. The HON would not require that a Group 2
process vent be controlled, thus in this situation, the source is achieving more
emission reduction than required on the Group 2 vent. However, the incinerator
cannot be used to generate credits because it is not a pollution prevention measure
or part of either an Early Reductions or a 33/50 commitment.
In the second example, the source used a pollution prevention measure on a
wastewater stream in 1988. This stream contains specific pollutants for which the
steamstripping reference technology can achieve 99 percent removal. Further, of the
99 percent stripped from the wastewater into a vapor stream, the vapor stream
reference technology can achieve 95 percent control.
Through the pollution prevention process change, the source reduced the annual
amount of wastewater it generates from 50 million liters (13,209,000 gal) to 25
million liters (6,604,500 gal). This process change also reduced potential
emissions from the wastewater stream by 50 percent, from 70 to 35 Mg/yr (77 to 38.5
tons/yr). In this case, if the source had not undertaken a pollution prevention
measure, then the allowed emissions after 99 percent wastewater stream control
followed by 95 percent vapor stream control would be 4.2 Mg/yr (4.6 tons/yr). After
taking the pollution prevention measure, emissions were 35 Mg/yr (38.5 tons/yr),
which is greater than the 4.2 Mg/yr (4.6 tons/yr) allowed to the point by the rule.
Without further controls, the source would not get credit for the pollution
prevention measure because it did not reduce emissions below what would have
occurred with application of the reference control. However, if the source uses 99
percent wastewater stream control followed by 95 percent vapor stream control in
addition to the pollution prevention measure, the residual emissions would be 2.1
Mg/yr (2.3 tons/yr). With the pollution prevention measure and the stream control,
the source would receive an annual credit equal to the difference between what the
rule would allow if a pollution prevention action had not been undertaken, 4.2
Mg/yr (4.6 tons/yr), and what was actually emitted after pollution prevention and
control, 2.1 Mg/yr (2.3 tons/yr). Thus, the credit would be for 2.1 Mg/yr (2.3
tons/yr).
5. Credit Discount Factors
Some have argued that if industry receives a cost savings as a result of
emissions averaging, the environment should also share that benefit by experiencing
greater emissions reductions. Credit discounting is one way to provide such a
benefit to the environment. The EPA is seeking comment on whether it is appropriate
to require the use of a credit discount factor in calculating emissions averages. A
discount factor would reduce the value of credits in the emissions average by a
certain percentage before the credits are compared to the debits.
In considering a discount factor, the EPA examined the requirements for
determining MACT in section 112(d) of the Act. Section 112(d)(2) specifies that
MACT standards shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP's,
taking into consideration, among other things, the cost of achieving those
reductions. By defining the source broadly and including the option for emissions
averaging in the proposed rule, it could be argued that the EPA is providing
flexibility for source owners and operators that would lower the costs of
compliance. Some have suggested that, to carry out the mandate of section
112(d)(2), such cost savings should be shared with the environment by requiring
sources using averaging to achieve more emission reductions than they would
otherwise.
Another view is that discount factors place a tax on market-based incentives
that is not placed on traditional command and control compliance methods. This tax
discourages emissions averaging thereby increasing the costs of complying with the
rule yet not necessarily increasing emission reductions. The increased cost imposed
by the inclusion of any discount factor may reduce or completely eliminate the
incentive to average thereby increasing the overall cost to society of complying
with the rule compared to what it would have been with emissions averaging without
decreasing emissions, generating no additional health protection for the public.
There may also be a technical reason for using a discount factor in averaging.
Emission estimates that would be used for averaging are inherently uncertain. It
should be noted that discounting is not required in most standards that do not
allow compliance through some form of trading. Some of the same technical
uncertainties also exist for those standards. However, for these standards, the
significance of technical uncertainties can be considered more limited because,
without emissions averaging, emissions estimates are not the basis for trading.
With the technical uncertainties of emissions estimation in mind, the EPA is
seeking comment on whether the emissions estimation procedures included in the
proposed rule for any kind of emission point can be expected to consistently
produce biased results, either over or under estimates of emissions.
Given the above considerations, the EPA is proposing a discount factor to be
selected from a range of values from 0 to 20 percent. This range reflects a
reasonable span of values that have been included in previous rules involving
emissions trading. It is emphasized that a decision on whether to include a {pg
62652} discount factor, and if so what the specific value will be, will be settled
for promulgation in the final rule. Comments are requested on what that value
should be.
One option under consideration is for the value of the discounting factor to
vary with the number and kinds of emission points included in the average. The
degree of uncertainty associated with estimating emissions varies among different
kinds of emission points. For example, there is more certainty regarding the
accuracy of the method used for estimating emissions from vents than there is for
the method used to estimate emissions from storage vessels. Therefore, the value of
the discounting factor could be higher if certain kinds of points, such as storage
vessels, were included in the average.
A second option would be to increase the value of the discount factor with
increases in the number of points included in the average. The intent of such a
provision would be to account for the increased uncertainty associated with
including more points, and the corresponding emissions estimates, into the average.
A third option would be to have a different discount factor for different
points based on the height at which their emissions are released. This system would
attempt to account for the dispersion characteristics and actual exposure impacts
of different emission points. However, EPA is concerned that the adoption of a
variable discounting factor, as in any of these three options, would greatly
increase the administrative complexity of emissions averaging, reducing its
workability.
Another option being considered is to include a two-tiered discounting factor
so that pollution prevention measures would be assigned a lower factor than other
credit- generating activities. This would serve as an incentive to generate credits
through activities that prevent pollution. Congress has indicated that, where
possible, EPA should encourage emissions reduction through pollution prevention,
which often results in reduced emissions from all emission points in the source,
both fugitive and point.
The EPA specifically requests comments on the use of a discounting factor for
emissions averaging in the HON. Commenters should address what value in the
proposed span (0 to 20 percent) should be selected, whether the value should vary
(and to what degree) according to the kinds and number of emission points included
in the average, and whether a lower value should be assigned to pollution
prevention measures.
6. Compliance Period
The proposed rule requires that the credits and debits generated in emissions
averages balance on an annual basis. In addition, the proposed rule requires that
debits do not exceed credits by more than 25-35 percent in any one quarter of the
year. These two requirements are used together to establish an emissions averaging
system that provides flexibility for changes in production over time without
allowing for wide-ranging fluctuations in HAP emissions over time. The proposed
rule also provides sources the opportunity to ''bank'' extra credits generated in
one compliance period for use in a later compliance period.
a. Annual and quarterly compliance requirements. The EPA is proposing an annual
compliance period for emission points included in averages by requiring that
credits and debits balance on an annual basis. This compliance period was selected
to provide sources considerable latitude in selecting points for inclusion in
emissions averages. With an annual compliance period, sources can average emission
points that may not have the same emission rates during some periods of the year,
as long as they are similar on an annual basis. This latitude will also be useful
to accommodate averages with points that must undergo temporary maintenance shut-
downs at different times over the year.
Several other factors were evaluated in making the decision to propose an
annual compliance period for emission points in averages. To determine the
appropriate compliance period for averaging, EPA examined the ability of control
and monitoring equipment to measure emissions or other parameters from the kinds of
emission points subject to the HON. Because of short term fluctuations in emissions
from some of the points, such as transfer racks, EPA concluded that 30 days was the
shortest compliance period that could reasonably be applied to all the kinds of
points that can be included in averages. Though the administrator did not choose to
require a 30-day compliance period, the proposed rule does require that sources
maintain records of their emissions averaging credits and debits on a monthly
basis.
In selecting a compliance period for averaging, EPA also considered the need to
verify compliance and, when appropriate, take enforcement action in a timely
fashion. One concern about an annual compliance period is that the EPA's authority
to take administrative enforcement actions would be significantly reduced because
section 113(d) of the Act limits assessment of administrative penalties to
violations which occur no more than 12 months prior to the initiation of the
administrative proceeding. Administrative proceedings are far less costly than
judicial proceedings for both EPA and the regulated community. The requirement that
debits not exceed credits by more than 25-35 percent in any quarter enables EPA to
use this administrative enforcement authority by providing a shorter period in
which to verify compliance.
A fourth factor considered in the selection of a compliance period for
averaging was the effect of averaging on the distribution of a source's emissions
over time. Averaging is intended to allow sources flexibility in how they create
emissions reduction without resulting in a significantly different emissions
scenario than would have occurred under point-by-point compliance with the proposed
rule. The requirement that debits not exceed credits by more than 25-35 percent in
any quarter limits the potential for wide variations in emissions over time, thus
ensuring that an annual compliance period will not result in a significantly
different emissions scenario than a shorter compliance period.
As described above, the requirement that debits do not exceed credits by more
than 25-35 percent in any quarter is an important element in the rationale for the
annual compliance period. The range for the variability factor included in this
requirement, 25-35 percent, was selected based on EPA's assessment of likely
differences in emissions across quarters for emission points with similar annual
emission values. The EPA is seeking comment on what other factors should be
considered in setting this number and data regarding the variability in emissions
from individual points over a year. This comment, and the included data, will be
used to select a single value for the quarterly variability factor in the final
rulemaking.
While the proposed rule establishes a ratio of quarterly credits to debits to
provide both flexibility and an enforceable short-term check on emissions, the same
goals could be accomplished with a different requirement. Industry sources have
suggested that EPA structure the quarterly check on emissions as an absolute
emissions limit. The limit would be set by the sum of the residual emissions that
would be emitted from the points in the average after application of the reference
control to each Group 1 point and with existing controls being applied at each
Group 2 {pg 62653} point. The owner or operator of the source would set this limit
in the operating permit or Implementation Plan based on anticipated operations for
upcoming quarters. The EPA is seeking comment on this alternative to the proposed
requirement that debits do not exceed credits by more than 25-35 percent in any
quarter. Commenters are encouraged to describe why the industry suggestion may be
preferable to the proposed requirement and to provide any data that EPA might find
useful in comparing the two approaches.
b. Banking provisions. One way a source can meet the annual compliance
requirements for the proposed rule involves the use of ''banked'' emission credits.
The proposed rule allows sources to bank their extra credits if they generate more
credits than are necessary to offset the debits from a given compliance period.
These banked credits are then available for use in future compliance periods when
the source has generated more debits than credits. Section 63.150(e) of subpart G
details how banked credits can be generated and used.
Banking is allowed by the proposed rule to provide flexibility when the number
of credits or debits generated over the year differ from what the source
anticipated in its averaging plan. Specifically, the banking provisions were
developed to provide flexibility when:
(1) There is an unanticipated mismatch in production or utilization rates for
the credit and debit generators;
(2) The maintenance shutdowns for averaged points are in different compliance
periods; and
(3) One or more of the credit generators must be shut down unexpectedly.
Allowing sources to bank extra credits also encourages earlier emission
reductions. Knowing that extra emission credits can be banked for possible use in
the future, sources may choose to reduce emissions more than required to generate
extra credits at an earlier time.
The final reason for allowing banking in the proposed rule is that banking can
be expected to reduce compliance costs in certain circumstances. Without banked
credits, sources can be expected to establish averages that should generate more
credits than needed to offset debits. Sources would build this cushion of credits
into their averaging plans to avoid noncompliance if an unexpected change in their
operations results in fewer credits or more debits than anticipated. While this
cushion of credits has the benefit of creating increased emissions reductions, it
can have a cost to the source if extra control is necessary to create the cushion.
Having banked credits reduces the need to build a cushion of credits into the
average, thus reducing the costs of compliance in those circumstances where extra
control would have been needed to create a cushion of credits. Banking can also be
expected to reduce compliance costs in those situations where creating fewer debits
or more current credits would be especially expensive. The EPA considers policies
to reduce the cost of compliance in an effort to fulfill the Act's statutory
requirement to consider cost in setting MACT standards. The inclusion of a banking
provision is another mechanism by which the EPA is implementing the requirements of
section 112(d)(2).
With the above listed reasons for allowing banking in mind, EPA is seeking
comment on whether or not banking provisions should be included in the HON. Some
have argued that, despite the benefits banking might provide, it is inherently
inconsistent with a NESHAP. As technology based standards, NESHAP does not
establish an absolute cap on emissions, but instead allow emissions to grow and
change with changes in processes or production. Including banking as a means of
compliance with a NESHAP is, in effect, an extension of the compliance period for
the source with banked credits. Thus, the primary effect of allowing banking in the
proposed rule is to shift emissions over time. However, others would argue that the
effect of banking is to achieve emissions reductions earlier than they would
otherwise have been achieved and at less cost to society. Thus, to include banking
allows a more efficient way to achieve emissions reductions. Based upon this line
of argument, the Administrator has concluded that banking is appropriate for the
HON in the context of emissions averaging. However, he welcomes comment on if and
how banking should be included in the HON.
The only way banked credits can be used is to meet the requirement that credits
and debits balance on an annual basis. Banked credits cannot be used to offset
debits that would exceed credits by more than 25-35 percent in any one quarter of
the year. This policy has been established because, in the Administrator's
judgment, the quarterly variability factor provides sufficient operational
flexibility on a quarterly basis. In addition, the purpose of the quarterly
requirement is to ensure that the levels of over-control and under-control used to
comply with emissions averages are roughly equivalent over each quarter of the
year. As a result, the quarterly requirement must be based on actual credits and
debits from the same time period to be meaningful.
The proposed rule includes a range, from 2 to 5 years, for the length of time
that banked credits are available for use. This range is being proposed as a means
of soliciting comment on the length of time that banked credits should be available
for use. The shorter end of the range is being proposed because EPA has some
concerns about the difficulty of taking enforcement actions involving banked
credits. Enforcement actions involving banked credits would be based on data from
multiple years and multiple emission points. Thus, emissions averaging, especially
with the possibility of banking, increases the complexity of the evidence in
controversy compared to an enforcement action for point-by-point compliance. In
addition, because enforcement actions involving banked credits may cover several
years' worth of data, the action may be barred by the general 5-year statute of
limitations. If banking is permitted for 5 years, the EPA might be in the position
of asserting that there are discrepancies in data, false reporting or other
violations up to 10 years after the banked credit was originally generated.
The longer end of the range being proposed for the availability of banked
credits is included because sources might create more extra emissions reductions
earlier if banked credits are available for use over a longer period. In addition,
limiting the length of time that banked credits are available for use can be
expected to create an incentive for sources to use the banked credits earlier than
they otherwise might have. Thus, it could be argued that a longer time for the use
of banked credits could result in later emissions and a longer period of lowered
emissions.
The EPA is seeking comment on both the enforcement concerns and incentive value
associated with how long banked credits are available for use.
In order to preserve the ability of the government to seek penalties for the
full 5-year period authorized by the general statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C.
Section 2462, the EPA is proposing to require that the underlying documentation
which supports the existence of a banked credit be maintained by the source for 5
years after the credit is used. For example, if the credit is generated in Year One
and used by the source in Year Two, then the records showing the validity of that
credit would have to be kept until the end of Year Seven. This would enable the {pg
62654} Agency to seek those records in an enforcement action commenced in Year
Seven, the last year in which it could seek penalties for a violation of the HON in
Year Two. It should be noted that if an enforcement action were actually begun in,
for example, Year Three, the source would need to keep the records until such time
as the enforcement action was concluded. In other words, the 5- year rule proposed
here is what authorizes the source to destroy the records in the absence of an
enforcement action. The EPA is interested in comments on whether there is a basis
for requiring records retention for a period of less than 5 years.
7. Emissions Averaging Enforcement
The Implementation Plan or operating permit for each source must reflect which
points will be included in an emissions average, and how each of those points will
be controlled. The controls will be cited in these documents so that inspectors
have a relatively simple way to verify compliance by emissions averaging. To verify
compliance, inspectors will ensure that the proper controls are installed in the
proper places and will examine the source's records to ensure that each emissions
average will balance. Thus, the application and proper operation and maintenance of
controls is separately enforceable from the credit/debit balance for emission
points included in averages.
The EPA has specified the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements necessary
to ensure that the credits and debits actually balance in each emissions average
and that these balances are enforceable. These balances are considered one
enforceable commitment made in either the Implementation Plan or the operating
permit.
The EPA is requesting comment on the process for ensuring that emissions
averages meet the requirements of this rule in those cases where a source must
comply prior to the approval of their Title V operating permit. The proposed rule
attempts to ensure this compliance by requiring that sources obtain approval of
those Implementation Plans that include emissions averaging. Thus, approval of
Implementation Plans for emissions averaging is required even if no operating
permit application has been filed.
8. The Potential Influence of Averaging on the Toxicity of Emissions
The current proposal for emission averaging compares ''debits'' with
''credits'' without consideration of toxicity. Concerns have been raised that such
a scheme would allow emissions of a ''more hazardous'' pollutant to be increased
(debit) for corresponding decreases in a ''less hazardous'' pollutant (credit).
Although the influence of such increases and decreases on the risk to public health
posed by the HON sources is unclear, the EPA is currently investigating two
approaches which use toxicity data in emission averaging, and requests comments on
both.
The first approach is to allow increased emissions of a HAP (debit) to be
compensated for by decreases in an equal or greater amount of ''a more hazardous
pollutant'' (credit). Under this approach, EPA's task is to determine the relative
hazard of one pollutant to another. For any one pollutant whose emissions are
increasing, pollutants which are determined to be equally or more hazardous may be
used in the current emission averaging methodology described in the HON. Pollutants
which would be considered to be less hazardous would simply not be allowed to be
used in the current emission averaging formula. This approach would be the easiest
to implement.
An alternative approach provides for more flexibility or greater emission
averaging opportunities but increases the complexity involved in integrating hazard
into the current emissions averaging methodology. Under this approach, a more
hazardous quantity (credit) may be used for emission averaging purposes regardless
of whether the pollutant whose emissions are to be decreased is itself ''more
hazardous'' than the pollutant with increased emissions. Using this approach, not
only must the relative hazard of the pollutants be established but also the
magnitude of the difference in hazard between pollutants. As the data and science
concerning determination of the magnitude in difference between pollutants is
limited, this approach is based on a number of policy judgments.
The EPA requests comment on the general issue of whether and how averaging may
influence the toxicity and risk of emissions from HON sources. In addition, the EPA
specifically requests comment on the two previously described alternative
approaches to limit the potential for averaging to increase the toxicity of HON
source emissions.
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rule would require sources to submit the following five types of
reports:
1. Initial Notification,
2. Implementation Plan (if an operating permit application has not been
submitted),
3. Notification of Compliance, Status,
4. Periodic Reports, and
5. Other reports.
The purpose and contents of each of these reports are described in this
section. The wording of the proposed rule requires all draft reports to be
submitted to the ''Administrator''. The term Administrator means either the
Administrator of the EPA, an EPA regional office, a State agency, or other
authority that has been delegated the authority to implement this rule. In most
cases, reports will be sent to State agencies. Addresses will be provided in the
General Provisions (subpart A) of 40 CFR part 63 that will be proposed in the
future.
Records of reported information and other information necessary to document
compliance with the regulation are generally required to be kept for 5 years. A few
records pertaining to equipment design would be kept for the life of the equipment.
1. Initial Notification
The proposed rule would require owners or operators who are subject to subpart
G to submit an Initial Notification. This report will establish an early dialog
between the source and the regulatory agency, allowing both to plan for compliance
activities. The notice is due 120 days after the date of promulgation for existing
sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days before commencement of construction or
reconstruction, or 45 days after promulgation of subpart G, whichever is later.
The notification must list the chemical manufacturing processes at the source
that are subject to subpart G, and which provisions may apply (e.g., process vents,
transfer operations, storage vessel, and/or wastewater provisions). A detailed
identification of emission points is not required. The Initial Notification must
include a statement of whether the source can achieve compliance by the specified
compliance date.
The regulated industry anticipates that, due to the large number of sources and
emission points required to comply with the HON, there may be delays in permitting
processes, and there may be insufficient engineering services and {pg 62655}
control equipment to achieve compliance in the 3-year time period allowed for
existing sources. If a particular source anticipates a delay that is beyond its
control, it will be important for the owner or operator to discuss the problem with
the regulatory authority as early as possible. Pursuant to section 112(d) of the
Act, the proposed rule has provisions for 1-year compliance extensions to be
granted on a case- by-case basis. Further discussion of compliance issues is
included in section VII.H. of this notice.
2. Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan details how the source plans to comply with subpart G.
Implementation Plans are only required for sources that have not submitted an
operating permit application. An operating permit application would contain all the
types of information required in the Implementation Plan, so it would be redundant
to require sources to submit both.
Existing sources must submit the Implementation Plan for points in averages 18
months prior to the compliance date. For emission points not included in an
emissions average, the Implementation Plan is due 12 months prior to the compliance
date. For new sources, Implementation Plans would be submitted with the
Notification of Compliance Status. It is critical that regulatory authorities have
the Implementation Plans well before the compliance date so they can plan their
implementation and enforcement activities. The early submission of these plans may
also benefit regulated sources by allowing them to receive any feedback on their
control plans prior to the actual compliance dates.
The Implementation Plan for points included in an emissions average is required
18 months prior to the compliance date to allow time for review and approval of the
average. Because of the complexities and site-specific nature of emissions
averaging, an approval process is necessary to assure all parties that the specific
plan will result in emissions credits outweighing debits. The Implementation Plans
for points in averages must be more detailed and thorough than the plans for other
emission points. The additional information is necessary for the reviewing
authority to make an informed decision about approving the average. The projected
credits and debits included in the Implementation Plan may be based on
calculations, design analyses, or engineering assessments instead of measured
values. This flexibility is provided because, in many cases, control measures will
not have been implemented at the time the plan is due, and actual measurements
would not be possible.
3. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be submitted 150 days after the
source's compliance date. It contains the information necessary to demonstrate that
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests, TRE
determinations, and design analyses. Further information on the requirements for
performance tests and other methods of compliance determination are provided in
section VII.B, C, D, and E of this notice for process vents, storage vessels,
transfer operations, and wastewater, respectively.
Sources with a large number of emission points are likely to be submitting
results of multiple performance tests for each kind of emission point. For each
test method used for a particular kind of emission point (e.g., a process vent),
one complete test report would be submitted. For additional tests performed for the
same kind of emission point using the same method, the results would be submitted,
but a complete test report is not required. Results would include values needed to
determine compliance (e.g., inlet and outlet concentrations, flow rates, percent
reduction) as well as the values of monitored parameters averaged over the period
of the test. The submission of one test report will allow the regulatory authority
to verify that the source has followed the correct sampling and analytical
procedures and has done calculations correctly. Complete test reports for other
emission points may be kept at the plant rather than submitted. This reporting
system was established to ensure that reviewing authorities have sufficient
information to evaluate the monitoring and testing used to demonstrate compliance
with the HON while minimizing the reporting burden.
Another type of information to be included in the Notification of Compliance
Status is the specific range for each monitored parameter for each emission point,
and the rationale for why this range indicates proper operation of the control
device. (If this range has already been established in the operating permit, it
does not need to be repeated in the Notification of Compliance Status). As an
example, for a process vent controlled by an incinerator, the notification would
include the site-specific minimum firebox temperature that will ensure proper
operation of the incinerator, and the data and rationale to support this minimum
temperature. Table 6a presents illustrative examples of the kinds of limits, or
ranges that might be set for monitored parameters. These ranges are provided only
as a guide to possible values, and actual values should be determined based on the
design and operating characteristics of the control device as well as process-
specific considerations. For a full discussion of this approach and EPA's
rationale, see section VII.H.2 of this notice.
Table 6 a.-Example Range Limits for Continuously Monitored
Parameters
Control device Thermal incinerator
Parameters to be monitored Firebox temperature sup a
Example parameter ranges Average firebox temperature must not
be more than 28 degrees C (50 degrees F) below the average
value measured during the most recent performance test.
Control device Catalytic incinerator
Parameters to be monitored Temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed
Example parameter ranges Average upstream temperature must
not be more than 28 degrees C (50 degrees F) below the average
value measured during the most recent performance test.
Parameters to be monitored
Example parameter ranges Average temperature difference
across the catalyst bed must be greater than 80 percent of the
average temperature difference measured during the most recent
performance test.
Control device Boiler or process heater with a design heat
input capacity less than 44 megawatts
Parameters to be monitored Firebox temperature sup a
Example parameter ranges Average firebox temperature must not
be more than 28 degrees C (50 degrees F) below the average
value measured during the most recent performance test.
Control device Scrubber for halogenated vent streams (Note:
Controlled by a combustion device other than a flare)
Parameters to be monitored pH of scrubber effluent
Example parameter ranges Average pH of the scrubber effluent
must not be more than 1 pH unit below the average value measured
during the most recent performance test.
Parameters to be monitored Scrubber liquid and gas flow rates
Example parameter ranges Average scrubber liquid/gas ratio
must be greater than 95 percent of the average value measured
during the most recent performance test.
Control device Absorber
Parameters to be monitored Exit temperature of the absorbing
liquid
Example parameter ranges Average exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid must not be more than 11 degrees C (20 degrees
F) above the average value measured during the most recent
performance test.
Parameters to be monitored Exit specific gravity
Example parameter ranges Average exit specific gravity must
be within 0.1 unit above or below the average value measured
during the most recent performance test.
Control device Condenser
Parameters to be monitored Exit (product side) temperature
Example parameter ranges Average exit temperature must not be
more than 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) above the average value
measured during the most recent performance test.
Control device Carbon adsorber
Parameters to be monitored Total regeneration stream mass
flow during carbon bed regeneration cycle(s)
Example parameter ranges Total regeneration stream mass flow
for a regeneration cycle must not be more than 10 percent below
the value measured during the most recent performance test.
Parameters to be monitored Temperature of the carbon bed
after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any
cooling cycle(s)
Example parameter ranges Temperature of the carbon bed after
regeneration must not be more than 10 percent or 5 degrees C
more than the value measured during the most recent performance
test.
Control device All Control Devices (as an alternative to the
above)
Parameters to be monitored Concentration level or reading
indicated by an organic monitoring device at the outlet of the
control device
Example parameter ranges Average concentration level or
reading must not be more than 20 percent more than the average
value measured during the most recent performance test.
sup a Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
For emission points included in an emissions average, the notification would
also include the measured or calculated values of all parameters needed to
calculate emission credits and debits, and the result of the calculation for the
first quarter. This information is needed to ensure that the points in the average
are being controlled as described in the Implementation Plan and that the average
itself is balancing as planned.
4. Periodic Reports
Periodic Reports are required to ensure that the standards continue to be met
and that control devices are operated and maintained properly. Generally, Periodic
Reports would be submitted semiannually. However, quarterly reports must be
submitted for the emission points included in an emissions average. This reporting
frequency is necessary to allow verification of the credit and debit balance on a
quarterly basis. In addition, if monitoring results show that the parameter values
for a particular emission point are outside the established range for more than 1
percent of the operating time in a reporting period, or the monitor is out of
service for more than 5 percent of the time, the Administrator (or delegated
regulatory authority) may request that the owner or operator submit quarterly
reports for that emission point. After 1 year, the source can return to semiannual
reporting, unless the regulatory authority requests continuation of quarterly
reports.
The EPA has established this reporting system in order to provide an incentive
(less frequent reporting) for good performance. Because of uncertainty about the
periods of time over which sources are likely to experience excursions outside the
parameter ranges or monitoring system failures, the EPA is seeking comment on the 1
percent and 5 percent criteria triggering more frequent reporting. In particular,
data are requested on both the frequency of excursions and monitoring system
downtime.
Periodic Reports specify periods when the values of monitored parameters are
outside the ranges established in the Notification of Compliance Status or
operating permit. For continuously monitored parameters, records must be kept of
the parameter value recorded once every 15 minutes. If a parameter is monitored
more frequently than once every 15 minutes, the 15-minute averages may be kept
instead of the individual values. This requirement ensures that there will be
enough monitoring values recorded to be representative of the monitoring period
without requiring the source to retain additional data on file and readily
accessible.
For some types of emission points and controls, periodic (e.g., monthly,
quarterly, or annual) inspections or measurements are required instead of
continuous monitoring. Records that such inspections or measurements were done must
be kept; but results are included in Periodic Reports only if a problem is found.
This requirement is designed to minimize the recordkeeping and reporting burden of
the proposed rule.
For emission points included in an emissions average, the results of the
quarterly credit and debit calculation are also included in the Periodic Reports,
so the reviewing authority can ensure that the quarterly requirements for the
average have been met.
The role of Periodic Reports for compliance purposes is described in section
VII.H. of this notice.
5. Other Reports
There are a very limited number of other reports. Where possible, subpart G is
structured to allow information to be reported in the semiannual (or quarterly)
Periodic Reports. However, in a few cases, it is necessary for the source to
provide information to the regulatory authority shortly before or after a specific
event. For example, if a process change is made that causes a process vent to
change from Group 2 to Group 1, the source must report the change within 90 days.
For storage vessels, notification prior to internal tank inspections is required to
allow the regulatory authority to have an observer present. For storage and
wastewater, if an owner or operator requests an extension of the repair period or a
delay of repair, the request needs to be submitted separately from the Periodic
Reports because the requests require a quick response from the reviewing authority.
Certain notifications and reports required by the Part 63 General Provisions
must also be submitted. These are described in section IX.A of this notice,
''Coordination with Other Clean Air Act Requirements.''
6. Possible Alternative Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rule requires sources to keep readily accessible records of
monitored parameters. For those control devices that must be monitored
continuously, records which include at least one monitored value for every 15
minutes of operation are considered sufficient. These monitoring records must be
maintained for 5 years. However, there are some existing monitoring systems that
might not satisfy these requirements. To comply with the HON, sources would have to
replace these existing monitoring systems. As a result, the EPA is seeking {pg
62657} data and comment on these existing monitoring systems.
Specifically, industry sources have informed EPA that some existing computer-
controlled processes have monitoring systems that only store data that is outside
some predetermined range of acceptable values. For example, these systems could be
set to record and store all monitored values outside a range such as sup 8 1
percent. If a monitored value did not exceed the specified range, no value would be
stored. When the value exceeded the range, a value would be stored. It is then
deemed that all data in between the stored values is the same as the last recorded
value. This system could also be used to record those periods when a monitored
parameter may be outside the parameter ranges established by the source to
represent proper operation of a control device. Keeping only these records would
dramatically reduce the data storage requirements.
Industry sources have also informed EPA that many existing process control
computer systems obtain monitoring data much more frequently than every 15 minutes,
but are not designed to maintain a record of such data for 5 years. Such systems
use this extensive monitoring data to calculate average parameter values for the
compliance period for the emission source (e.g., 3 hour average). The individual
data points could be kept in an accessible record for a period of several days so
that the averaging procedure could be verified, and then could be ''written over''
to conserve computer time and memory storage space. The average for the 3-hour
compliance period would be retained in an accessible record for 5 years.
At this time, EPA does not have a sufficient understanding of these systems to
ensure that they provide sufficient support data to accurately and reliably reflect
the source's continued compliance. Therefore, EPA has not included them as a
recordkeeping option in the proposed rule. Instead, EPA is seeking comment on
whether and how these systems should be allowed for compliance with the
recordkeeping requirements in the HON. Specifically, EPA is interested in: what
criteria are used to determine the values that are stored by these existing
monitoring systems; how the validity of the data is verified; the frequency of
calibration for this type of system; how operators ensure the accuracy of the
results from these existing systems; and what types of processes or controls are
currently being monitored with these systems. In addition, EPA is seeking comment
on how the requirements allowing the use of these systems to comply with the HON
might be structured. Finally, EPA is seeking comment on the concept of determining
compliance based on data that do not include values to represent the entire
compliance period (i.e., absence of data indicating a violation would constitute
evidence of compliance).
H. Selection of Compliance Provisions
1. Compliance Schedule
The compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after promulgation of the
HON. The 3-year compliance time is required by section 112(i)(3) of the Act. The
compliance date for new sources is the date of start-up or the date of
promulgation, whichever occurs later, as specified by section 112(i)(1) of the Act.
During development of the HON, EPA received comment from the regulated
community regarding the process that would be used to comply with the rule and
certain difficulties that were anticipated. Because the HON will regulate such a
large segment of SOCMI operations, the regulated community anticipates that there
may be insufficient engineering services and control equipment to achieve
compliance in the time allowed.
One way in which the proposed rule addresses this issue is to allow for a 1-
year compliance extension on a case-by- case basis. Section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act
allows for site-specific 1-year extensions to be granted through the operating
permit. However, because of the schedule for States to establish and implement
operating permit programs, the 3-year compliance date for the HON may occur prior
to the submission of permit applications or the approval of operating permits for
some sources. With this potential timing difficulty in mind, the Administrator is
proposing that HON sources be allowed to request extensions through a submittal
other than the permit application in States where operating permit applications
will not have been submitted prior to the due date for the HON Implementation Plan.
The proposed rule allows the owner or operator of a HON source to request the 1-
year extension from the Administrator with their initial notification or with a
separate submittal at any point prior to the submission of an Implementation Plan.
The EPA is seeking comment on the significance of the potential difficulties of
complying with the HON in the allotted 3 or 4 years. In addition, EPA is seeking
comment regarding how these difficulties can be addressed within the confines of
the statutory requirements of sections 112(d) and 112(i) of the Act. Specifically,
EPA is seeking comment on what types of non-regulatory activities, such as
technical assistance, can be provided to assist sources attempting to come into
compliance with the HON.
2. Parameter Monitoring and Compliance Certification
The proposed Subpart G requires monitoring of control device operating
parameters and reporting of periods when parameter values are outside site-
specific ranges. Although in previous NSPS and NESHAP, the EPA has specified a pre-
determined range of operating parameter values, such values could be considered
inadequate given the increased importance of parameter monitoring in determining
and certifying compliance due to the new requirements in Section 114 of the Act.
For the proposed HON, EPA is requiring sources to establish site-specific ranges.
Allowing site-specific ranges for monitored parameters accommodates site-specific
variation in emission point characteristics and control device designs. Based on
the information available at proposal, it appeared to be difficult to establish
ranges or minimum or maximum values that would be applicable in all cases.
The proposed system for establishing operating parameter ranges attempts to
balance the need for technical certainty and operational feasibility. The ranges
may be established by performance testing supplemented by engineering assessments
and manufacturer's recommendations. However, the performance test is not required
to be conducted over the entire range of permitted parameter values because such a
requirement could impose significant technical difficulties and costs on the
source. The EPA believes that a performance test conducted for a smaller, yet
representative, range of operating conditions can still provide a range for the
operating parameters that ensures proper operation of the control device. For
emission points and control devices where a performance test is not required (for
example, a closed vent system and control device on a storage vessel), the range
may be established by engineering assessment.
Under the NSPS and NESHAP programs, parameter monitoring has traditionally been
used as a tool in determining whether control devices are being maintained and
operated properly. However, section 114(a)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.6(c) of the
operating permit rule (57 FR 32251) require the submission of ''compliance {pg
62658} certifications'' from sources subject to the operating permit program.
In light of these requirements, the EPA has considered how sources subject to
this rule would demonstrate compliance. The EPA has concluded that operating
parameter monitoring can be used for this purpose. The EPA considered three
alternatives for using continuous parameter monitoring in determining compliance.
The first alternative was that each excursion of a parameter outside the
established range would constitute a violation of the permitted operating
conditions for the control device. The first alternative was not selected because
correlation of operating parameters with performance of the control device is not
exact and operation outside the parameter range is not necessarily indicative of
improper operation and maintenance.
The second approach was to require corrective action to be taken within 24
hours of first recording the excursion. The excursion would only be considered a
violation if the problem was not corrected within 24 hours. The second alternative
also was not selected because of the associated recordkeeping burden and
difficulties in verifying compliance. Another disadvantage of the second
alternative is it did not provide an incentive for the source to avoid operation
outside the parameter ranges.
The third approach was to excuse a certain number of excursions per reporting
period based on evidence that a certain number of excursions could be expected even
with properly operated pollution control devices. For example, the rule could
excuse three excursions and, if there were fewer than three excursions in a
semiannual period, the source could certify continuous compliance; however, if a
fourth excursion occurred, it would be a violation of the permitted operating
conditions.
The Administrator chose the third approach described above. The proposed rule
requires the source to record daily average values for continuously monitored
parameters. The daily average is the average of all of the 15-minute values
generated by the continuous recorder during the operating day. If the daily average
value is outside the established range, it must be reported. The EPA is proposing
to allow from 3 to 6 excused excursions (3 to 6 operating days) per semiannual
reporting period for each control device.
The daily averaging period was selected because the purpose of monitoring data
is to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the control device. Because it
often takes from 12 to 24 hours to correct a problem, this averaging period was
considered to best reflect operation and maintenance practices. This averaging
period therefore gives the owner or operator a reasonable period of time to take
action. If a shorter averaging period (for example 3 hours) was selected, sources
would be likely to have multiple excursions caused by the same operational problem
because it would not be possible to correct problems in one 3-hour reporting
period.
The proposed range of 3 to 6 days of excusable excursions per semiannual
reporting period (or 1 to 3 days per quarterly reporting period) equates to roughly
1 to 3 percent of the days in the reporting period. The range of time allowed as
excused excursions was selected based on information about the types of events that
cause parameter excursions; the duration of typical excursions; and the frequency
of the events that create excursions.
Examples of events that could cause excursions that would count toward the
number of excused excursions are: a thermocouple failure in an incinerator; water
contamination in a condenser; off-specification feedstocks; electrical problems;
control valve problems such as leaky pneumatic drivers; and extreme environmental
conditions. Events that would be considered malfunctions under the Start-up, Shut-
down and Malfunction Plan required by the General Provisions (subpart A) are to be
handled separately and would not be counted toward the allowed number of excused
excursions for purposes of compliance with subpart G of the HON. In addition, the
provision for excusable excursions is not meant to allow actions that are
specifically disallowed by other sections of the HON or the General Provisions,
such as bypass of a control device.
Comments on the proposed approach and the other alternative approaches that
were considered and any other suggested approaches are requested. Regarding the
proposed approach, comment is requested on the number of days or percent of
operating time that should be allowed as excused excursions, and whether the number
of excused days should decrease over time, after an initial break-in period. In
particular, EPA requests that commenters submit data that might be used to better
characterize the cost of such requirements, the relationship between operating
parameter monitoring results and control device performance, and data that might
indicate how many excursions are associated with proper operation and maintenance
of various control devices. The EPA also requests comment on the availability of
methods for continuous monitoring of operating parameters and whether such methods
could be used for compliance determinations and certification.
VIII. Rationale for Provisions in Subpart H
A. Background
Equipment leak emissions refer to the loss of VOC's and VHAP's through the
sealing mechanism separating process fluid contained in equipment from the
atmosphere. Because of the large number of valves, pumps, and other components
within a process unit, total emissions from such equipment can be large. Equipment
leaks have been estimated to contribute about one-third of all routine (non-
accidental) VOC emissions from the chemical industry.
Existing regulations adopted under sections 111 and 112 of the Act (i.e., 40
CFR 60, subparts VV, GGG, and KKK, 40 CFR part 61, subpart V) hereafter referred to
as ''existing rules'') and in SIP's have been effective in heightening awareness of
the significance of equipment leaks and in stimulating control efforts. These rules
basically require that pumps and valves be inspected periodically for leaks with a
portable hydrocarbon detector. If a VOC concentration greater than 10,000 ppm, as
methane or hexane, is found, the component is identified as a ''leaker'' and
maintenance is required to repair the leak. This approach is known as LDAR. When
these rules were established, EPA estimated that emissions would be reduced by
about 60 to 70 percent and that after control, leak frequencies would be
approximately 5 percent.
Data gathered over the past several years on equipment leaks at some chemical
plants indicate that much lower leak frequencies can be achieved. These data,
however, did not identify specific factors that led to lower leak frequencies, nor
indicate how low leak frequencies could be obtained at all chemical plants.
Consequently, EPA saw a need for a new regulatory approach that would achieve low
leak frequencies at all chemical plants. It was recognized that establishing such a
regulation for as broad and varied a source category as chemical production units
would be difficult. The challenges included determining how to achieve low leak
frequency at all plants with a simple set of rules, how to provide more flexibility
in achieving low leak rates than that provided by LDAR alone, how to apply
standards across the industry using data from only a part of the {pg 62659}
industry, and the EPA's need to establish standards consistent with the MACT
requirements of the Act.
On April 25, 1989, EPA announced its intention to establish a committee to
negotiate a new approach for control of volatile organic chemical equipment leaks
(54 FR 17944), and conducted an initial informational meeting on May 15, 1989, to
determine among interested parties whether negotiation would be desirable. The
participants at the initial meeting responded favorably to the concept of
negotiation, and on September 12, 1989, EPA established a negotiating committee (54
FR 37725). The Committee met over a period of 1 year, holding nine 2-day meetings
and one 1-day meeting, to resolve the various issues related to developing a MACT
standard for equipment leaks. The Committee members are listed in Table 7.
Table 7.- List of Negotiators, Facilitator, and Observer
Negotiators Robert L. Ajax
Affiliations Environmental Protection Agency.
Negotiators Alfred Bickum
Affiliations International Institute of Synthetic Rubber
Producers.
Negotiators Bruce Bowers
Affiliations Standard Chlorine.
Negotiators Linda Curran
Affiliations Amoco Oil.
Negotiators David Doniger, Allen Hershkowitz
Affiliations Natural Resources Defense Council.
Negotiators David Dunn
Affiliations Sterling Chemicals, Incorporated.
Negotiators Larry Goodheart, Ellen Siegler
Affiliations American Petroleum Institute.
Negotiators Jack Kace
Affiliations Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
Negotiators Thomas Kittleman
Affiliations Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Negotiators Robert Majewski
Affiliations Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management.
Negotiators Les Montgomery
Affiliations Texas Air Control Board.
Negotiators Harvel Rogers
Affiliations Jefferson County (Kentucky) Air Pollution
Control District.
Negotiators Gustave Von Bodungen
Affiliations Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Facilitator:
Phillip J. Harter
Affiliations Consultant to EPA.
Observer:
Nicolas Garcia
Affiliations Office of Management and Budget.
The Committee considered the many factors and uncertainties associated with
regulating equipment leaks at a wide variety of chemical plants and developed an
acceptably balanced approach, weighing the need to be flexible, the technical
uncertainties, the requirement for MACT standards, and the data limitations. At the
final negotiating session, the Committee members conceptually resolved all
outstanding major issues and decided to reach final agreement through a two-step
process. The Committee members first agreed in principle to the regulatory language
to be proposed and then concurred on a draft preamble to the regulation describing
in detail the scope, application, effect, and rationale. All Committee members have
agreed to support the standard as long as EPA proposes and promulgates a regulation
and its preamble with the same substance and effect as the regulation and preamble
that are the subject of the final agreement.
It is important to note that the parties to the negotiation concurred with the
regulation when considered as a whole. Inevitably, in any negotiation, this means
that some parties may have made concessions in one area in exchange for concessions
from other parties in other areas.
B. Scope and Applicability
1. Source Categories
The negotiators originally were to develop standards for equipment leaks for 13
source categories that would be affected by the EPA's then expected HON. These
source categories included both SOCMI and non-SOCMI source categories, and the
standards under development would have applied to eight hazardous organic
chemicals. Over the course of the negotiations, and in anticipation of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA saw the need to expand this scope to include not
only the original HON source categories, but also all SOCMI processes that use as a
reactant or produce one of the organic chemicals listed in the Clean Air Act list
of 189 HAP's. The EPA identified 396 such processes. The Committee agreed to expand
the scope of the negotiations to the larger group of SOCMI processes and to retain
the non-SOCMI categories.
In addition, EPA determined that petroleum refinery processes would not be
covered by these standards, regardless of whether the unit supplies feedstocks that
include chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183, and that MACT standards for petroleum
processes would be established in a separate rulemaking. These standards also would
not be applicable to other petroleum-related facilities, including those engaged in
petroleum exploration, production, marketing, or transportation. Refinery processes
not covered by this regulation include, but are not limited to, cracking,
reforming, coking, and other processes that produce transportation fuels, heating
oils, or lubricants. Table 8 presents a more detailed list of examples of refinery
processes not included in the scope of this rule.
Table 8.- Examples of Refinery Processes Excluded From the
Negotiated Regulation
Thermal processes
-Gas-oil cracking
-Thermal cracking
-Visbreaking
-Coking (fluid)
-Coking (delayed)
-Coking (flexi)
-Other
Catalytic cracking
-Fluid
-Other
Catalytic reforming
-Semiregenerative
-conventional catalyst
-bimetallic catalyst
-Cyclic
-conventional catalyst
-bimetallic catalyst
-Other
-continuous catalytic reforming
-conventional catalyst
-bimetallic catalyst
Catalytic hydrocracking
-Distillate upgrading
-Residual upgrading
-Lube-oil manufacturing
-Other
Catalytic hydrorefining
-Residual desulfurizing
-Heavy gas-oil desulfurizing
-Cat-cracker and cycle-stock feed pretreatment
-Middle distillate
-Other
Fractionation
-Pipe stills
-Light ends
-Gas recovery units
On-site transfer and blending operations of gasoline and
other fuels
Lube oil and specialties processes
Catalytic hydrotreating
-Pretreating cat-reformer feeds
-Naphtha desulfurizing
-Naphtha olefin or aromatics saturation
-Straight-run distillate
-Other distillate
-Lube-oil "polishing"
-Other
Alkylation
-Sulfuric acid
-Hydrofluoric acid
Refinery polymerization processes
Crude units (Atmospheric and vacuum)
Refinery isomerization process
2. Relationship Between This Regulation and Future Regulations for Refinery
Equipment Leaks
The Committee agreed on the following language to describe the relationship
between this regulation and future regulations for refinery equipment leaks:
The standards incorporated in this agreement were established by the Committee
based primarily on data from well-controlled ethylene oxide plants and data from a
number of SOCMI plants. The Committee did not review data from petroleum refining
processes because they were outside the scope of the negotiations, and the
Committee did not consider whether the numerical standards in this agreement are
achievable by refinery processes. The Committee recognizes that there are technical
differences between SOCMI categories and petroleum processes that may affect the
achievability of the numerical standards (including percent leakers). Potential
differences include the availability and effectiveness of emission control
technologies, plant shutdown practices, line sizes, process temperatures and
process pressures, and cost. These differences could work in the direction of
making the numerical standards adopted by the Committee more easily achievable, or
less easily achievable, for refinery processes.
The Committee agrees that the framework used for the regulation developed
during the current negotiation should be adopted in the MACT regulation for
petroleum refinery equipment leaks unless there are sound technical reasons why a
different framework would be more effective.
The American Petroleum Institute understands that the numerical standards
included in this negotiated rule are more stringent than those that would have been
selected if the rule had provided that exceedences of numerical standards, by
themselves, constituted violations of the CAA. The American Petroleum Institute
recognizes that this will also be true of the numerical standards that will be
included in a MACT regulation for refinery equipment leaks utilizing the framework
of the currently- negotiated regulation.
If EPA develops MACT refinery equipment leak regulations, it will conduct a
separate rulemaking. Technical differences between SOCMI and refinery processes
that may affect the achievability of the standards will be considered by EPA in the
refinery equipment leak rulemaking.
3. Equipment
The negotiated rule would apply to those pieces of equipment which are
regulated in the existing sections 111 and 112 equipment leaks rules, including all
valves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines,
connectors, closed vent systems and control devices, sampling connection systems,
and product accumulator vessels. In the existing rules, connectors are referred to
as ''flanges and other connectors'' or simply as flanges. To avoid potential
misinterpretations of the negotiated rule and to eliminate redundancy within the
phrase, the term connector is used in the negotiated standard to designate the same
types of fittings which were previously termed flanges and other connectors; i.e.,
all flanged, screwed, or other joined fittings used to connect two pipelines or a
pipeline and a piece of equipment. The negotiated rule would not apply to flanges
between sections of a vessel (e.g., body flanges on a distillation column reactor
or heat exchanger, etc.), head gaskets on vessels, or access hatches (e.g.,
manholes). These types of seals are not included in the definition of connector.
The negotiated rule also contains provisions for agitators and instrumentation
systems. The rationale for the inclusion of agitators and the separate treatment of
components in instrumentation systems in the negotiated rule is discussed later
under the basis for the negotiated rule.
The negotiated rule would apply to both existing and new process units. The
negotiated rule categorizes the regulated processes into five groups and uses a
staggered implementation scheme, requiring some process units to comply in 1/2
year, while others would comply as late as 1 1/2 years after final promulgation of
the rule. This staggered implementation was provided to alleviate the impact of
applying the rules simultaneously to all sources.
An affected ''process unit'' means equipment that uses a VHAP as a reactant or
produces a VHAP or its derivatives as intermediate or final product(s), including
all equipment associated with the unit process operation, storage and transfer of
feed material to the unit process operation and final or intermediate product from
the unit process operation, and operations treating process wastewater (e.g.,
strippers, decanters) from the unit process operation.
The proposed standards would apply to chemical manufacturing processes operated
to produce one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.184. Examples of SOCMI
production processes that would be subject are a unit process operation that
produces ethylbenzene from benzene, a unit that produces phenol and acetone from
cumene, and a unit that produces butadiene by separation from an impure mixed C-4
stream received from another plant site. Examples of operations that would not be
considered subject to this standard are waste solvent reclamation or a SOCMI
process using any of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183 only as a solvent.
The standards would also apply to equipment handling specific chemicals for the
non-SOCMI source categories listed in Section 63.160(c). These source categories
and chemicals are: styrene-butadiene rubber production (styrene, BD); polybutadiene
production (BD); chlorine production (carbon tetrachloride); pesticide production
(carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, and ethylene dichloride); chlorinated
hydrocarbon use in production of chlorinated paraffins, Hypalon sup , OBPA/1,3-
diisocyanate, polycarbonate, polysulfide rubber, and symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene,
chloroform, and ethylene dichloride); pharmaceutical production (carbon
tetrachloride, methylene chloride); and miscellaneous BD use (BD).
The lines within a unit process operation containing process fluids are
considered to be part of the process unit and thus, subject to regulatory
requirements, while lines and equipment not containing process fluids are not
subject to these requirements. Utilities, and other nonprocess lines, such as
heating and cooling systems, are not considered to be part of a process unit. For
example, any direct heating and cooling systems, which generally service many
processes at a plant and do not combine their materials with those in the processes
they service, are also not subject to these requirements.
A plant site may consist of one or more process units. Process units covered by
the negotiated rule are listed specifically in Secs. 63.160 (b) and (c) of the
negotiated rule.
C. Background Information on Equipment Leaks
This section presents an overview of findings from previous equipment leak
studies and a summary of information that led to the EPA's decision to develop a
new regulatory approach for equipment leaks through negotiation. This synopsis is
not intended to reflect the Committee discussions. Rather, it is intended to
provide basic information for readers unfamiliar with the existing standards, the
underlying studies, and recent trends. More detailed information on the basis for
the existing requirements and underlying studies is available in the dockets and
Federal Register notices for the existing rules.
1. Overview of Background Information
One of the first published studies of equipment leak emissions was conducted in
the 1950's in several petroleum refineries in the Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District. The results of this study showed that a large quantity of
hydrocarbons could be lost to the atmosphere from various sources such as valves,
pump and compressor seals, flanges, and pressure relief devices. In the late 1970's
and early 1980's, EPA conducted several studies to evaluate and quantify emissions
from equipment leaks in petroleum refinery operations and in chemical process
units. In these studies, EPA collected data and evaluated leak frequency, mass
emissions, and {pg 62661} methods and effectiveness of leak prevention. These
studies showed that equipment leaks were a significant source of emissions and that
the majority of emissions at that time were associated with equipment leaks
measured at concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm.
In the EPA Refinery Assessment Study, data were gathered on equipment screening
values (using a portable VOC instrument) and mass emissions. These data permitted
the development of average emission factors and screening value/emission rate
correlations. The study also provided other important results. Analyses to identify
equipment or process variables (e.g., equipment manufacturer, age, or line size,
process pressure, stream volatility) that affect leak frequency led to the
separation of equipment component emissions by stream phase: gas/vapor, light
liquid, and heavy liquid. These classifications have been used to design
regulations based on leak potential.
In 1980, EPA conducted a study of equipment leak emissions from 24 individual
SOCMI process units. In this study, the 24-Unit Study, EPA investigated leak
frequency (at a concentration of 10,000 ppm) in equipment at 24 individual chemical
process units. A study of the effects of maintenance on emissions was performed
concurrently at six of the units screened in the 24-Unit Study. The data from these
studies were used to develop average emission factors and screening value/leak rate
correlations; to evaluate leak frequency as a function of process parameters and
equipment design; to evaluate the effect of instrument response factors on leak
frequency; and to estimate the effect of leak occurrence and recurrence rates on
mass emissions. These studies also demonstrated that a program consisting of
inspection of equipment and maintenance of the leaking equipment was an effective
means of reducing emissions. The control measures identified at that time were
estimated to achieve overall a 60 to 70-percent reduction in emissions from
equipment leaks. The data and conclusions from the studies on petroleum refinery
units and chemical process units served as a basis for the EPA's equipment leak
regulations and guidelines that were issued in the early 1980's.
Information obtained in these studies also showed that leak frequencies varied
widely among process units and source types and that factors that affect leak
frequencies were not well understood. Specifically, studies such as the EPA's 24-
Unit Study showed that the frequency of leaks greater than 10,000 ppm ranged from 0
to approximately 30 percent among 15 different chemical processes. Similar chemical
processes also showed large differences in leak frequencies; for example, the leak
frequencies for gas valves varied from 0 to 18 percent for three ethylene
dichloride units. In subsequent studies, EPA evaluated leak frequency as a function
of process parameters and equipment design and identified no single factor that
determined leak frequency. Leak frequencies are believed to be a function of
component design, specifications, construction, material, and age; quality and
frequency of maintenance; operating and training practices used by the company;
diligence; process fluids and operating conditions; and other unidentified factors.
Current regulations adopted under sections 111 and 112 of the Act (e.g., 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V) require: (1) An LDAR program for
valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service and pumps in light liquid service; (2)
equipment for compressors, sampling systems, and open-ended lines; and (3) no
detectable emissions (500 ppm as determined by Method 21) for pressure relief
devices in gas/vapor service during normal operation. These rules do not require
sources to achieve particular performance levels or to install particular equipment
designs (e.g., DMS on pumps). As such, residual emissions will vary among process
units and the best controlled units will emit less than typically or poorer
controlled units.
2. Recent Studies
In the last 3 years, EPA has received information that shows significantly
lower leak frequencies at 10,000 ppm for some chemical processes than was
representative for the industry as a whole in the early 1980's. This information,
not necessarily known by the industry in general, was one consideration in the
EPA's decision to develop a new regulatory approach for equipment leaks through the
regulatory negotiation process. The information considered by EPA is briefly
summarized in the paragraphs below. In addition, where sufficient information is
available, these data are included in Table 9 which shows leak frequency at several
leak definitions by component type. In general, these data were collected following
the procedures specified in Method 21, and the results represent a single
monitoring survey conducted over a limited time period.
Table 9.- Summary of Equipment Screening Data sup a
Unit ID EO 1
Valves 250 0.6
% 500 0.4
Leakers 1,000 0.3
Pumps 500
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250 0
% 500 0
Leakers 1,000 0
Unit ID EO 2
Valves 250 2.8
% 500 2.2
Leakers 1,000 1.1
Pumps 500 0
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250 0.9
% 500 0.9
Leakers 1,000 0.9
Unit ID EO 3
Valves 250 1.4
% 500 1.1
Leakers 1,000 1.1
Pumps 500 23
% 1,000 18
Leakers 2,000 14
Leakers 5,000 9
Connectors sup b 250 3.2
% 500 3.2
Leakers 1,000 3.2
Unit ID EO 4
Valves 250 2
% 500 1.3
Leakers 1,000 0.9
Pumps 500 36
% 1,000 27
Leakers 2,000 9
Leakers 5,000 9
Connectors sup b 250 2.8
% 500 1.5
Leakers 1,000 0.7
Unit ID EO 5
Valves 250 0.4
% 500 0.2
Leakers 1,000 0.2
Pumps 500 0
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250
% 500
Leakers 1,000
Unit ID EO 6
Valves 250 1.6
% 500 1.4
Leakers 1,000 1.3
Pumps 500
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250 4.1
% 500 4.1
Leakers 1,000 4.1
Unit ID EO 7 sup c
Valves 250 1.2
% 500 1.2
Leakers 1,000 1.2
Pumps 500 0
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250 0
% 500 0
Leakers 1,000 0
Unit ID EO 8
Valves 250 2.9
% 500 2.5
Leakers 1,000 1.5
Pumps 500 6
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250 2.5
% 500 2.5
Leakers 1,000 2.5
Unit ID EO 9
Valves 250 5.3
% 500 4.5
Leakers 1,000 4.1
Pumps 500 25
% 1,000 25
Leakers 2,000 25
Leakers 5,000 25
Connectors sup b 250 7.6
% 500 5.9
Leakers 1,000 4.9
Unit ID BD 1
Valves 250 10.7
% 500 8.8
Leakers 1,000 7.5
Pumps 500
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250 0
% 500 0
Leakers 1,000 0
Unit ID BD 3 sup c
Valves 250 5.6
% 500 4.8
Leakers 1,000 4.2
Pumps 500 24
% 1,000 21
Leakers 2,000 15
Leakers 5,000 13
Connectors sup b 250 0.7
% 500 0.7
Leakers 1,000 0.7
Unit ID BD 4
Valves 250 7.3
% 500 6.3
Leakers 1,000 5.4
Pumps 500 2.9
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250 10
% 500 8.6
Leakers 1,000 7.1
Unit ID BD 5
Valves 250 11
% 500 7.7
Leakers 1,000 5.1
Pumps 500 sup d50
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250 3.4
% 500 1.5
Leakers 1,000 1.1
Unit ID BD 6
Valves 250 7.5
% 500 5.4
Leakers 1,000 3.3
Pumps 500 sup d33
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250
% 500
Leakers 1,000
Unit ID BD 7
Valves 250 2.2
% 500 2.2
Leakers 1,000 2.2
Pumps 500
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000
Connectors sup b 250 0
% 500 0
Leakers 1,000 0
Unit ID BD 8
Valves 250 21.9
% 500 18.4
Leakers 1,000 15.1
Pumps 500 58
% 1,000 50
Leakers 2,000 41.7
Leakers 5,000 41.7
Connectors sup b 250 7.4
% 500 6.7
Leakers 1,000 5.9
Unit ID BD 10
Valves 250 25
% 500 19.8
Leakers 1,000 17.1
Pumps 500 0
% 1,000 0
Leakers 2,000 0
Leakers 5,000 0
Connectors sup b 250 5.1
% 500 2.5
Leakers 1,000 1.9
Unit ID BD 11
Valves 250 11.3
% 500 10.1
Leakers 1,000 8
Pumps 500 16.7
% 1,000 16.7
Leakers 2,000 16.7
Leakers 5,000 16.7
Connectors sup b 250 1.4
% 500 1.4
Leakers 1,000 0.7
Unit ID BD 12
Valves 250 5.9
% 500 4.5
Leakers 1,000 3.7
Pumps 500 10
% 1,000 10
Leakers 2,000 10
Leakers 5,000 10
Connectors sup b 250 0.6
% 500 0.6
Leakers 1,000 0.6
Unit ID Acrolein
Valves 250 0.1
% 500 0.1
Leakers 1,000 0.1
Pumps 500 4
% 1,000 4
Leakers 2,000 4
Leakers 5,000 4
Connectors sup b 250 0.1
% 500 0.1
Leakers 1,000 0.1
Unit ID Average SOCMI at 10,000 ppm
Valves 250 11.5
% 500
Leakers 1,000
Pumps 500
% 1,000
Leakers 2,000
Leakers 5,000 9
Connectors sup b 250
% 500
Leakers 1,000 2.1
sup a Leak frequencies are not shown for phosgene units since all
observations are "0."
sup b Data includes flanges, threaded fittings, unions, and any
other pipe-to-pipe connections other than welds. The records are
not sufficient to permit differentiating among types of
connectors.
sup c Certain ranges of data for these facilities were discarded
due to excessive rounding and truncation errors.
sup d Type of pump seal is unknown.
Units subject to the Benzene Equipment Leak National Emission Standards for
hazardous air pollutants. During the EPA's reconsideration of the benzene equipment
leak NESHAP (September 14, 1989, 54 FR 38044), EPA examined compliance reports from
1987 and 1988 for a randomly selected sample of 25 plants subject to the standard,
which requires a 10,000 ppm LDAR program. This review showed that plants had more
than 1.5 percent valves or more than 12.5 percent pumps exceeding 10,000 ppm. The
average frequency of sources exceeding 10,000 ppm was lower than the average
frequencies of 3 to 5 percent for valves and approximately 10 percent for pumps
which had been expected after application of the standard.
Acrolein process units. In 1989, EPA received screening data and process
information on two acrolein process units. These data were collected voluntarily by
the company to provide better emission estimates than could be obtained using the
SOCMI average factors. The monitoring data represented eight types of equipment
(gas valves, light liquid valves, light liquid pumps, flanges and other connectors,
pressure relief valves, sample points, open-ended lines and compressors). These
monitoring data were collected following the procedures specified in ''Protocols
for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for Equipment Leaks of VOC and
VHAP'', (Protocols) EPA- 450/3-88-010. In general, particular care was taken in
measurements of equipment with screening values of less than 200 ppm. In addition,
one of the units had approximately 60 percent sealed bellows valves and the other
unit had no sealed bellows valves.
The screening data indicated average leak frequencies of 0.26 to 0.09 percent
for valves and of 0.13 to 0 percent for flanges and other connectors at leak
definitions of 100, 1,000, and 10,000 ppm. These data showed that both conventional
and sealed bellow valve designs can achieve very good performance with few leaking
valves. The observed leak frequencies of all components were substantially below
the levels found by EPA in studies conducted in the early 1980's.
Amine unit-West Virginia. In 1987, EPA received monitoring data for two process
units handling amines. These units were selected for testing because of the service
conditions (i.e., high temperature and high pressure) and high vapor pressures of
the process materials. One unit (Unit 1) was characterized as handling relatively
nontoxic and innocuous substances and the other unit (Unit 2) was characterized as
handling a more toxic compound, one with a threshold limit value of 10 ppm. These
data were collected voluntarily by the company to calculate a unit specific
emission estimate using the EPA's leak/no leak emission factors. Monitoring data
were provided for pumps, valves, and flanges and other connectors.
The monitoring data for Unit 1 showed 33 percent of the pumps, 16 percent of
the light liquid valves, 27 percent of the gas valves, and 0.4 percent of the
flanges and other connectors exceeding 10,000 ppm. Unit 2 had 5.6 percent of the
pumps, 0.8 percent of the light liquid valves, 1 percent of the gas valves, and 0.1
percent of the flanges and other connectors exceeding 10,000 ppm.
Ethylbenzene/styrene unit-Texas. Limited information was received on screening
values measured at this facility's EB/S process unit, which is subject to the
benzene equipment leak NESHAP. Screening data were provided for a total of
approximately 2,500 valves and pumps. The data were provided as time aggregated
summaries of screening values for a 1-year period from 1987 to 1988. These data
indicated that 99 percent of the time the valves and 90 percent of the time the
pumps had screening values less than 500 ppm. Information submitted for compliance
with the benzene equipment leak NESHAP showed on an annual average basis 0.04
percent of the valves and 3.6 percent of the pumps exceeded 10,000 ppm. No
description was provided of the procedures used in the data collection, other than
that Method 21 was used.
Chemical Manufacturers Association studies of Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide, and
Phosgene process units. In addition to the preceding information, comprehensive
screening data were also provided to EPA on 33 BD, EO, and phosgene production
process units. The monitoring data represented eight types of equipment (gas
valves, light liquid valves, light liquid pumps, flanges and other connectors,
pressure relief valves, sample points, open-ended lines and compressors) at
essentially all BD, EO, and phosgene producers operating in the United States.
These data were collected voluntarily by the CMA committees to provide EPA with
better industry-wide estimates of emissions from equipment leaks at these process
units than could be obtained using EPA average factors for SOCMI. These monitoring
data were collected following the procedures specified in the Protocols. These
studies provide the most comprehensive equipment screening data available that
document the full range of leak frequencies for large numbers of process units used
for the production of specific chemicals. The EPA also obtained information on the
plant work practices, operations, and the equipment design specifications.
Conditions in the equipment surveyed spanned a wide range of temperatures and
pressures 10 degrees C to 288 degrees C and 136 to 3,550 kPa (50 degrees F to 550
degrees F and 5 to 500 pounds per square inch gauge) , as well as a range of line
diameters (0.5 inch to greater than 6 inches).
The screening data indicated that most process units at these facilities are
characterized by equipment leak frequencies far below levels found by EPA in
studies conducted in the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, the data base indicated
much lower leak frequencies at the phosgene process units than at the EO and BD
units, and the EO units in general had lower leak frequencies than {pg 62663} the
BD units. Table 9 presents the plant-specific leak frequency data by component
type, at various leak definitions for the three processes. The data shown in Table
9 are the screening data that were judged to be consistent with proper calibration
and use of the test equipment. The screening values for the ten BD and nine EO
process units were also adjusted for the instrument response factor to represent
more accurately the screening concentration of equipment in BD or EO service. The
data presented in Table 9 represent process units in various stages of control and
operations. Some plants operated using formal LDAR programs and others did not;
some units were screened just before a shutdown for maintenance and others were
screened just after startup following a scheduled maintenance shutdown.
The above information, when compared with the earlier studies and analyses
indicated to EPA that the performance capability of available technology is better
than had been expected from a 10,000 ppm LDAR program alone. Furthermore, analyses
of these data showed, like earlier studies, that no single factor or technology was
responsible for the better performance. Rather, the recent data confirmed that
effective leak control involves a combination of factors. For example, statistical
analysis of the recent EO and BD data failed to identify specific process
parameters or equipment designs that alone would significantly affect leak
frequencies.
D. Development of Framework and Selection of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
Selection of MACT for equipment leaks, unlike many other source types, requires
a balancing of a number of interrelated factors and is not based on identification
of a specific best control technique or approach. The following discussion explains
the Committee's assessment and consideration of the available data in the
development of the framework as well as the selection of MACT.
1. Information Considered
In deliberations over the framework, the Committee considered screening data
from the CMA surveys of EO, BD, and phosgene production units as well as data and
information from other process units. The additional information considered
included data provided on an EB/S process unit and on three facilities in Texas
subject to a 500 ppm leak permit condition. The information available for the EO,
BD, and phosgene units, and for the EB/S unit was described in the preceding
section. The information provided on the three facilities in Texas is described
below.
a. Texas Air Control Board data. Additional data from three plant sites were
provided by the Committee member representing the TACB. These plants are subject to
a Texas regulation that requires LDAR with directed maintenance at a 500 ppm leak
definition. This requirement has been applied as of the permit program for new and
modified sources. Data were provided for cumene, phenol/acetone, and
butyraldehyde/butanol process units which had been operating a 500 ppm LDAR program
for 1 to 6 quarters. These units had average leak frequencies at 500 ppm for valves
ranging from 0 to 3.6 percent. The average leak frequency at 500 ppm reported for
pumps varied from 0 to 20 percent in the first period and from 3.6 to 5 percent in
the second period. Average leak frequencies for flanges varied from 0 to 2 percent.
These data show for several chemicals that a 500 ppm LDAR program is effective and
will significantly decrease leak frequency.
b. Plant visit. In addition to considering the available screening data,
several members of the Committee visited three integrated chemical plants, one of
which had 20 operating units including a phosgene unit, a toluene diisocyanate
unit, and a hydrogen fluoride unit. One conclusion drawn from these visits was that
the acute toxicity of phosgene and toluene diisocyanate, combined with other
features of these units, has resulted in the routine use of a number of effective
leak control practices in these process units. Measures taken to prevent and
minimize leaks in phosgene and isocyanate units include design to minimize the
number of components, stringent quality assurance/control programs, bench testing
of equipment for leaks, and careful management and extensive continuous monitoring
of the unit to detect leaks and problems. In addition, phosgene and isocyanate
units are shut down for immediate repair whenever any leak is detected. Immediate
shutdown is possible because phosgene and isocyanate process units are small and
are not operated as of an integrated process. In units where less acutely toxic
compounds are used or produced and in facilities where operations are large scale
and highly integrated, such measures were not observed and the units are not (and
cannot be) immediately shut down for repair whenever a leak is detected. Rather,
shutdown of facilities with large integrated processes can require several days to
cease production, followed by up to several weeks to drain and decontaminate the
process equipment prior to actually initiating repair. These units are typically
operated for a fixed time period before they are shut down for maintenance and
repair. Representative operating times between scheduled shutdowns range from 3
months to several years.
The Committee also concluded that equipment design and an on-going quality
control/assurance program has a significant role in achieving low leak frequencies.
This conclusion was supported by remarks made to the Committee by a chemical
industry representative who described his company's recent experience with two EO
production units. Following completion of a screening study, the company undertook
a program to reduce the leak frequency and emissions from the units. Steps taken
consisted of component inspection, complete or partial replacement of over 700
valves and 2,000 gaskets, modification of design to reduce leaks, and regular
monitoring and inspection for leaks. The company reported that there was an overall
reduction of about 80 percent in the number of leaking components following
completion of this project.
2. Committee Analysis and Consideration of the Data
The Committee considered the data and information described in the preceding
section and concluded that the EO, BD, and phosgene data should serve as the
principal basis for establishing the performance of MACT for SOCMI processes. The
EO, BD, and phosgene data, however, were considered in light of the broader data;
especially, the Texas 500 ppm LDAR program and the site visits. On this basis, the
Committee agreed that phosgene units are not similar in design, operation, and
maintenance to most SOCMI processes. Some of the maintenance and operating
practices for phosgene units control programs went beyond MACT for other SOCMI
processes. One example of this is the practice of immediate shutdown. Immediate
shutdown is economically and technically infeasible for other processes because
shut down of the one unit would require shut down of all the integrated operations
at the site and it would be impractical to clear large volumes of chemicals in
short time frames. In some cases, emissions from clearing process material from or
all of the units could greatly exceed the emissions that would result from the
leaking equipment. Therefore, while the {pg 62664} phosgene units' performance did
provide an indication of the potential for leak reduction, the Committee concluded
that the EO and BD units are more representative of the range of processes in SOCMI
than are phosgene or toluene diisocyanate units. The Committee did recognize, as
indicated by the framework and the base performance levels, that low leak
frequencies are generally achievable at chemical plants and that the rule should
encourage attaining low emissions.
From the data and observations, the Committee also concluded that low emission
performance results from combinations of monitoring (or surveillance), repair of
leaking equipment, use of quality assured and quality controlled equipment suitable
for the process operating conditions, and a quality controlled maintenance and
repair program. The Committee concluded that such combinations are MACT for SOCMI
processes. The information available did not identify any single factor, such
particular equipment design or specific work practices or maintenance programs that
by itself would guarantee low emission performance in all cases. Furthermore, the
Committee did not identify the results at any one specific process unit or
performance level as representing MACT performance because there is no apparent
break point that represents a limit of what is achievable with a combination of
technologies that are available. Thus, the Committee identified the best performing
EO process units, the EB/S unit, the Texas 500 ppm units, and possibly the best
performing BD process units (for pumps) as reflecting the performance of MACT for
production processes involving HAP's.
3. Regulatory Approach
Because available information indicated that best performance for equipment
leaks could not be defined or reflected in a single numerical standard, type of
technology, or group of work practices, the Committee focused on developing a
regulatory framework that, when combined with performance levels, would reflect
MACT. Key principles that evolved during the negotiations and that led to the
regulatory framework are:
(1) Incentives should be included in the standard to reward good performance
and prescribed corrective actions should be included to ensure poor performance is
improved in a timely manner.
(2) Flexibility in achieving specified results is important. This is necessary
to allow consideration of process to process variations in operating conditions and
equipment specifications and to provide incentives for identifying the most
effective combination of equipment and practices.
(3) Identifying, designing, and implementing systems to meet the specified
results requires varying amounts of lead time. Effective control requires continual
analysis and adjustment, and may involve several technologies which cannot be
identified or applied at one time or in one step.
(4) More frequent monitoring and maintenance or a prescribed program should be
employed, at a minimum, for those process units that do not achieve the specified
results through a program of their own design or through quarterly inspection and
maintenance alone.
(5) There is insufficient information available to set an enforceable not-to-
be-exceeded standard. The existing information is too limited in scope to predict
with certainty what level of performance could be achieved by processes for which
no data were available.
The majority of the Committee deliberations concerned development of a
regulatory framework and performance levels that would incorporate the above key
principles, while reflecting the performance of MACT. These deliberations primarily
focused on developing provisions for valves, pumps, and flanges because these
emission sources offered the greatest potential for emission reductions. The
Committee used the existing LDAR program as a starting point for development of the
framework for these sources. Early-on, the Committee recognized the need for a
phased-in approach for valves and pumps that would provide time for plants to
develop and implement effective programs and to focus on larger emission sources
first. The phased-in approach is necessary because effective control requires
continual analysis and adjustment of programs as experience is gained. The
Committee defined MACT for pumps and valves in terms of three phases of
requirements of increasing stringency. Each phase, as it occurs, reflects the
performance of MACT for units in that phase.
The Committee also deliberated on several methods of linking monitoring
frequency with performance and of providing incentives to use low emission
equipment or to reduce the amount of equipment in VHAP service. The final decision
was to link reduced monitoring frequency with lower leak frequencies, and to give
credit for removal of equipment or use of low leak design equipment. The
performance format of the standards would also encourage the use of low-leak
technologies. This approach is consistent with the data which indicate that there
are combinations of technology, maintenance practices, and quality assurance
programs that can achieve very low leak frequencies while using less frequent
monitoring intervals.
The Committee also debated whether to require shut down of process units for
repair of leaking equipment whenever performance deteriorates below some specified
performance level. The Committee ultimately concluded that process units should not
be shut down to meet a performance level. It was generally agreed that clearing of
process materials could cause greater emissions than delaying repairs until the
next scheduled shutdown.
The Committee also agreed to retain the provisions of the existing equipment
standards for pressure relief devices, sample points, open-ended lines, product
accumulator vessels, and compressors. The existing standards for these items of
equipment require installation of equipment or control devices and essentially
eliminate emissions from equipment leaks. The Committee considered these
requirements to be MACT.
For the valve, pump, and connector standards, the Committee primarily used the
data from the better-performing EO units, the best-performing BD units (for pumps
only), the Texas 500 ppm units, and the EB/S unit to establish the performance
levels for the monitoring frequency. A major consideration in the selection of
performance levels was the understanding that the levels are interrelated with the
framework and phasing and are not necessarily the levels that would have been
chosen for a not-to-be-exceeded standard. In the case of the valve standard, the
selection of the base performance levels was also influenced by the inclusion of
provisions that provide an alternative to monthly monitoring. Referred to as the
QIP, this program ensures that plants subject to this QIP replace poorer performing
valves (during normal replacement) with superior performing technologies until less
than 2 percent leaking valves is achieved and implement a quality assurance/control
program to ensure that all elements of MACT are utilized. Also, the QIP was
included in the framework to allow those process units that do use all elements of
MACT but do not achieve the specified numerical performance levels to remain on a
quarterly monitoring schedule instead of increasing monitoring frequency.{pg 62665}
The basis for the selection of the base performance levels and other elements
of MACT for valves, pumps, and connectors is discussed below. The basis for the
other provisions of the valve, pump, and connector standards as well as the other
specific requirements of the regulation is given in Section VIII.F of this
preamble.
a. Valves. For valves, the Committee initially considered both equipment
standards and LDAR programs and ultimately agreed upon a three-phase LDAR program.
Initially, the Committee considered requiring the use of equipment such as sealed
bellows valves because the equipment is often believed to have zero emissions. This
option was not selected for several reasons. First, these valves are not suitable
for use in all operating conditions and services encountered in SOCMI processes.
Specifically, these valves cannot be used in corrosive streams, with gritty
materials, or in extremely high pressure or temperature conditions. Second, sealed
bellows valves can leak internally, and will eventually fail. When failure occurs,
there is potential for massive leaks. Due to this possibility for leaks, monitoring
of these valves is necessary. Considering this, the Committee thought that the leak
detection, repair, and base performance level standards framework described above
would best reflect MACT. This approach allows and would give credit for any low
emission performing valve regardless of its design.
The Committee considered several LDAR programs which tied monitoring frequency
to the performance level achieved and created a framework that consists of several
combinations of work practices and performance levels. In determining the maximum
monitoring frequencies for Phase III, the Committee considered requiring weekly
monitoring and monthly monitoring. The Committee agreed that a monthly program
would be generally feasible and would reduce emissions, while being sufficiently
costly to provide an incentive for owners of such sources to identify more cost-
effective approaches. For plants that do not achieve the performance level required
for quarterly monitoring of valves, the standard requires monthly monitoring or
participation in the QIP program. In addition, the Committee also decided to allow
less frequent monitoring to provide an incentive to achieve better performance than
that required for the base quarterly monitoring program. Annual and semi- annual
frequencies were selected for the incentive programs.
In selecting the base performance level and leak definition, the Committee
considered the performance of the better performing EO units and the performance of
the units subject to the Texas 500 ppm standard. Using these data, the Committee
considered leak definitions in the range of 50 to 2,000 ppm and performance levels
from 1 to 5 percent leaking valves. These data and the fact that, in practice, low
leak frequencies were achieved by a 500 ppm LDAR program alone supported the
practicality and achievability of a performance limit for a quarterly LDAR program
of 2 percent leaking valves at a 500 ppm leak definition. Leak definitions lower
than 500 ppm were not selected due to some Committee members' concerns regarding
the practical ability to measure and repair smaller leaks. In contrast, other
members of the Committee favored leak definitions lower than 500 ppm. Ultimately, a
leak definition of 500 ppm was selected in light of data demonstrating the
practicality and current implementation of a 500 ppm LDAR program. The Committee
also agreed that units with less than 1 percent leaking valves could monitor the
valves semiannually and those with less than 0.5 percent leaking valves could
monitor annually. These performance levels were selected considering the Committee
had previously agreed to exclude nonrepairable valves (up to a maximum of 1 percent
of the total number of valves in VHAP Service) from the calculation of percent
leaking valves (see Section VIII.F.4 of this notice for discussion of the basis for
the nonrepairable provision). These performance levels have been demonstrated by
the better performing EO process units, the EB/S unit, and by the plants subject to
the Texas 500 ppm regulation. The Committee considered these levels to represent
the performance of MACT.
b. Pumps. In deliberations on the standard, the Committee considered the data
summarized in Table 9, additional analyses of the EO/BD data, and the comments of
pump seal manufacturers. The EO/BD data showed pump leak frequencies and overall
performance to be highly variable with leak frequencies ranging from 0 to 50
percent at a 1,000 ppm leak definition. Additional analyses were done to compare
the performance of DMS and SMS pumps. These comparisons showed that the performance
of both DMS pumps and SMS pumps varied widely among the process units. In general,
DMS pumps screened at less than 500 to 1,000 ppm. In some cases, the SMS pumps
screened at less than 100 ppm and could be viewed as having comparable performance
to that of DMS pumps. For the majority of SMS pumps screening at less than 10,000
ppm, the screening values were fairly uniformly distributed from 100 to 9,100 ppm.
Thus, the data did not provide a clear indication of the performance level that can
be achieved by SMS without incurring high maintenance costs.
From its consideration of the available data, the Committee generally concluded
that pumps equipped with DMS, as a group, have lower leak frequencies than those
equipped with SMS. Consequently, the Committee deliberated at great length on
whether MACT is reflected by an equipment standard for DMS on all pumps or by a
performance standard. The Committee decided not to establish an equipment standard
because DMS are not suitable for use in all cases and because a DMS equipment
standard would be very costly and would preclude effective lower cost options. Dual
mechanical seals cannot be used with materials where leakage of the barrier fluid
would affect product purity (such as with medical products), with polymerizing
monomers, or on reciprocating pumps. Also, the pump casing of some existing packed
seal and SMS pumps does not allow installation of a DMS assembly. In such cases, a
DMS equipment standard would require replacement of the entire pump. The cost of a
DMS equipment standard was considered in a general sense; however, no agreement was
reached on the cost of installation of DMS systems or on the cost of a DMS
equipment standard, including the cost of pump replacements. The opinion that a DMS
equipment standard would be very costly was based on general knowledge and the
experience of some Committee members. However, to give all Committee members some
perspective on the potential costs, EPA provided an estimate of the annualized cost
for retrofitting an existing pump with a DMS system. This estimate showed the cost
would be approximately $2,200 per year (1990 dollars) for each pump in VHAP
service. In previous rulemakings, EPA has estimated that a requirement of DMS on
pumps has an incremental cost effectiveness over a 10,000 ppm LDAR program of
$5,600/Mg ($5,080/ton) of total VOC or pure VHAP (1978 dollars), which is
comparable to approximately $15,000/Mg ($13,600/ton) in 1990 dollars. Some
Committee members expressed an additional concern that a DMS equipment standard
would have a {pg 62666} significant adverse economic effect on small producers.
To establish a performance standard that would reflect MACT for pumps, the
Committee considered the performance capabilities of SMS (and packed seals)
compared to the performance, applicability, and cost of DMS. Discussions among the
Committee members, chemical industry representatives, and pump seal manufacturers
led to the conclusion that it is not possible to identify precisely best
performance levels achievable by SMS and that, although advances in technology
could reasonably be expected over the next 5 years, the limits on these advances
could not be established. Because of technical limitations on the use of DMS on
pumps in food/medical service and the use of mechanical seals on pumps handling
polymerizing monomers, the Committee agreed to establish separate performance
standards for pumps in those two services.
For pumps in general chemical service, the Committee agreed to establish 1,000
ppm as a performance target reflecting MACT and to establish 2,000 ppm as the
concentration at which repair is required. The Committee agreed to require repair
of pumps with an instrument reading greater than 2,000 ppm as a result of some
Committee members concerns that repair at lower concentrations could result in
significant and costly maintenance, with little to no emission reduction. The
Committee also concluded that a 10 percent leak frequency (or three leaking pumps)
is the appropriate point to impose a QIP that includes a mandatory replacement
provision, if the leak frequency remains greater than 10 percent. On balance, it
was believed that this combination of requirements would provide the time and
incentive needed to achieve best performance from SMS, would allow use of SMS where
they can achieve low emissions, and would allow use of both SMS and DMS pumps, as
appropriate, to achieve the standard.
For pumps in food/medical service, the Committee selected 2,000 ppm and 10
percent leak frequency as the performance level. The leak definition was set at
2,000 ppm to account for the limited applicability of DMS pumps and the uncertainty
that SMS seals could achieve lower performance levels without excessive
replacements in this service. The Committee also agreed that processes with pumps
in food/medical service that exceed 10 percent leaking pumps would not be subject
to the mandatory replacement provisions in the QIP.
For pumps handling polymerizing monomers, the Committee selected 5,000 ppm and
10 percent leak frequency for the performance level. As mechanical seals cannot be
used on pumps in polymerizing monomer service, industry representatives generally
maintained that pumps in this service could not achieve a 2,000 ppm leak
performance level. The Committee ultimately agreed to the 5,000 ppm leak definition
based on expert judgment that 5,000 ppm would reflect best performance and on the
general lack of data for pumps in this service. It was also agreed that facilities
that exceed 10 percent leak frequency would not be subject to the mandatory
replacement provision of the QIP.
c. Connectors. Provisions for a LDAR program for connectors were developed
after the Committee generally agreed that connectors could be a significant source
of emissions at a well-controlled plant and that emissions could be reduced. In the
development of these provisions, the Committee considered the data summarized in
Table 9 and the contribution of connector emissions to total emissions for several
EO/BD process units. These data showed a range of connector leak frequencies at
different leak definitions (e.g., 3 percent at 10,000 ppm to less than 2 percent at
250 ppm) and showed that connectors could be a significant source of the total
emissions. Some Committee members believed the relatively high leak rates observed
at some process units were a result of infrequent or no inspections and
maintenance. The Committee agreed that connector leaks should be controlled,
therefore, a LDAR program was established to ensure that low leak frequencies are
attained.
In development of these provisions, the Committee agreed that LDAR can reduce
connector leak frequencies and that assuring MACT performance requires less
frequent monitoring than is necessary for pumps or valves. Less frequent monitoring
is needed because connectors have no movings and once repaired they should remain
leak free for extended periods. Information provided by industry members on the
Committee indicated that a number of actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate
leaks. In most cases, it was expected that tightening the flange bolts on flanged
connectors would eliminate the leak. It was also expected that in other cases it
may be necessary to replace the gasket or to correct faulty alignment of surfaces.
These latter cases are expected to be relatively infrequent. The Committee,
therefore, decided that annual monitoring was reasonable. The Committee also
concluded that process units that demonstrate sustained performance at the level of
the standard should be allowed to monitor less frequently than annually. This
concept is similar to the skip-period provisions for valves in the existing
equipment leak regulations. This approach is consistent with quality control
principles and the Committee concluded that this approach will ensure MACT
performance.
The Committee selected the performance level and leak definition considering
the data from the EO/BD units, the Texas 500 ppm units, and the general conclusions
drawn from the Committee's discussions. These data and the fact that, in practice,
low leak frequencies were achievable persuaded the Committee that a leak definition
of 500 ppm and a base performance level of 0.5 percent leaking connectors would
reflect MACT. Process units that have 0.5 percent, or greater, leaking connectors
are required to implement an annual LDAR program for connectors. Process units that
have less than 0.5 percent leaking connectors are allowed to monitor all connectors
in a biennial or quadrennial program.
E. Selection of Format of Standards
Under section 112 of the Act, national emission standards must, whenever
possible, take the format of a numerical emission standard. Typically, an emission
standard is written in terms of an allowable emission rate (mass per unit of time),
performance level (e.g., 90 percent control), or an allowable concentration. These
types of standards require the direct measurement of emissions to determine
compliance. For some source types, emission standards cannot be prescribed because
it is not feasible to measure emissions. Section 112(h)(2) recognizes this
situation by defining two conditions under which it is not feasible to establish an
emission standard. These conditions are: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or
(2) if the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations. If an emission standard cannot be
established, EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard or combination thereof.
For equipment leak sources, such as pumps and valves, EPA has previously
determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards.
Except for those items of equipment for which standards can be set at a specific
concentration, the only method of measuring emissions is total enclosure {pg 62667}
of individual items of equipment, collection of emissions for a specified time
period, and measurement of the emissions. This procedure, known as bagging, is a
time-consuming and prohibitively expensive technique considering the great number
of individual items of equipment in a typical process unit. Moreover, this
procedure would not be useful for routine monitoring and identification of leaking
equipment for repair.
The proposed standards incorporate several formats: equipment, design, base
performance levels, work practices, and operational practices. Different formats
are required for different types of equipment because of the nature of the
equipment, available control techniques, and applicability of the measurement
method. In the next section, the rationale for selecting particular format is
explained for each type of equipment. For each source type, the feasibility of
prescribing or enforcing an emission standard is discussed.
F. Selection of Emission Limits and Work Practice Requirements
1. Applicability
The Committee considered and ultimately established several additional
applicability criteria that further defined the scope of the negotiated standard.
This section presents the Committee's consideration of minimum VHAP concentration,
time in VHAP service, and pilot plants and research facilities.
a. Stream volatile hazardous air pollutant concentration. The Committee
discussed at some length what minimum concentration should be used for determining
applicability of the negotiated standard for specific streams within an affected
process. This minimum concentration was of particular concern to industry members
of the Committee because there are trace quantities of VHAP in many process
streams. The number of equipment components potentially subject to the standard and
the associated costs increase substantially as the concentration is decreased; and
the emission reduction becomes small. Other Committee members were concerned that
emissions from equipment handling streams containing low VHAP concentrations (e.g.,
less than 10 percent) become relatively more significant as higher concentration
streams are controlled. Based on these considerations, the Committee agreed the
standard would apply to equipment containing or contacting process materials that
are 5 percent VHAP or greater. In SOCMI processes, this concentration was viewed as
being a point of relatively low emissions and diminishing returns.
b. Time-in-VHAP service. In certain chemical plants, particularly batch
processes which produce a number of different products, there is equipment that is
used in VHAP service only occasionally. In such cases, implementation of the
standard could be difficult and would achieve very little emission reduction. Pumps
and compressors used only during startup or shutdown of a process unit are one
example of such equipment. Other examples include equipment used in batch
pharmaceutical processes or batch steps in continuous processes. For these
situations, the Committee concluded that equipment that is operated 300 hrs/yr, or
less, in VHAP service should be exempt.
c. Research facilities. Exemption of research facilities (including pilot
plants) from the negotiated standard was discussed on several occasions by the
Committee. Some members thought that frequent changes in operations at these
facilities would make compliance with the standard difficult or would incur
unnecessary costs. Other Committee members were of the opinion that the negotiated
standard should apply equally well to pilot plants and research facilities as
production units, and that chemical industry pilot plants can be quite large and
have substantial emissions. An additional concern expressed by some members was
that any exemption should be based on objective criteria, not the intended use of
the material or the purpose of the facility. The Committee did not resolve this
issue, and concluded that the final Clean Air Act Amendments should dictate the
disposition of research facilities, as several versions of the pending legislation
provided for limited exemptions.
The final amendments, however, are not definite on how to deal with research
facilities and leave it to the EPA's discretion to '' establish a separate category
covering research or laboratory facilities, as necessary (emphasis added), to
assure the equitable treatment of such facilities.'' (Section 112(c)(7).) The issue
of regulating research facilities extends beyond equipment leaks, because research
facilities can also have other emission points such as process vents or storage
tanks. During preparation of this preamble, after enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments, a consensus of Committee members was reached that it was more
appropriate to address research facilities in the overall HON and to deal with it
outside the negotiation, since no consensus was reached during the negotiation and
the issue is broader than the negotiated rule. Consequently, those portions of
today's notice addressing the regulation of research facilities are not of the
negotiated agreement and may be commented on by the negotiators.
2. Compliance Dates
In developing the compliance schedule and framework of the standards, the
Committee anticipated the Clean Air Act Amendments requirement that compliance
dates for each category apply as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 3
years after the effective date of the standards. The Committee recognized in the
selection of compliance dates that the equipment leak regulation is primarily a
work practice standard. Unlike standards that require installation of control
equipment, the equipment leak regulation does not require major installation of
equipment or large capital expenditures. Also the time needed to identify all
components in VHAP service, establish a recordkeeping system, obtain monitoring
equipment, and initiate an inspection and maintenance program is relatively short.
Based on these considerations, and recognizing that advance notice would be
provided when the rule is proposed in 1991, the Committee concluded that 6 months
after promulgation was a reasonable lead time for compliance with Phase I.
An additional concern to the Committee in establishing the compliance schedule
was the potential for the negotiated rule to overwhelm the resources of both
industry and regulatory agencies because of the large number of affected facilities
(about 1,000 process units) expected. The Committee considered several methods of
distributing the peak demand for equipment and staff, and ultimately agreed to a
staggered implementation schedule that spreads the compliance over a 1-year period.
The affected source categories were divided into five groups roughly based on the
carcinogenicity and weight of evidence for the chemicals associated with the
category. Sources handling chemicals with the highest health hazard were assigned
to Group I and those with the lowest were assigned to Group V. In addition, the
seven non-SOCMI source categories as well as benzene, toluene, and xylene
production were included in the first group of source categories. The Committee
agreed that this would allow industry, contractors, vendors, and regulatory
agencies the time necessary {pg 62668} to manage successfully the increased demand
on resources and personnel that is anticipated to result from the negotiated rule.
The provisions of the negotiated rule would become applicable to those
processes listed in first group 6 months after promulgation of the HON, and to one
additional group of production processes each successive quarter. The negotiated
rule would, therefore, become applicable to the last group 18 months after
promulgation of the negotiated rule. Apart from staggered applicability dates, all
other provisions of applicability, including the provisions for a source to request
an extension, remain as provided for in the General Provisions for NESHAP.
The negotiated rule also allows an owner or operator to elect to comply with
the applicability date of an earlier group. The Committee agreed that some owners
or operators at plants having process units from two or more groups might prefer to
comply with the provisions of the negotiated rule all at once, or in fewer phases,
in order to avoid confusion or misunderstandings about what rules or procedures
were applicable to which individual items of equipment.
3. Phases of Valve and Pump Standards
Both the valve and pump standards were structured in three phases to allow time
to improve performance and to achieve progress toward lower emission levels. The
Committee designed Phase I to allow existing facilities unfamiliar with the
existing rules the time necessary to develop and implement a 10,000 ppm LDAR
program, as well as to assess the necessary changes in operations, maintenance, and
training of employees. Phase I is considered necessary because the majority of
existing facilities do not presently implement LDAR programs and it was recognized
that establishing programs can be a lengthy process. The Committee agreed Phase I
should begin on the applicability date for an existing unit and last for 1 year. A
1-year interval will allow 4 quarters of monitoring which should provide sufficient
time to establish a program and to identify and repair valves and pumps with the
highest emissions.
Phase II was established to achieve further emission reductions by reducing the
leak definition to 500 ppm for valves and 5,000 ppm for pumps. This phase is
intended to expand the focus from the higher screening value leaks to lower values
and to continue the identification of problem equipment. The Committee agreed that
Phase II would begin 1 year after the applicability date for an existing process
unit and would continue for 1 and 1/2 years before Phase III is implemented.
In Phase III for valves, the Committee added a base performance level to the
work practice requirements of Phase II. The base performance level was used to
determine the monitoring frequency or the applicability of the QIP. The base
performance level was added to ensure a more certain emission performance than
achieved through the work practice requirement alone and to create an economic
incentive to improve performance. For Phase III of the pump standard, the Committee
added a base performance level to the work practice requirements and reduced the
concentration defined as a leak. The Committee established separate leak
definitions for three types of pumps to ensure that each category achieves MACT.
For new process units, the Committee agreed that for both pumps and valves
Phase II should be implemented at startup and Phase III should be implemented
beginning 1 year after startup. It was expected that new units will be designed
using better equipment design or practices and considering the requirements of the
standard. The Committee provided a 1-year period in Phase II to allow time needed
for adjustments to operations and to correct any problems encountered during
startup of the process unit.
4. Valve Standard
As discussed earlier, the Committee developed the valve standard using the LDAR
program of the existing rule as a starting point. The standard recommended by the
Committee consists of three phases of requirements of increasing stringency and
these requirements are a combination of LDAR programs and performance levels.
Figure 2 presents the conceptual approach for the valve standard. The rationale for
the framework of the standard and the selection of the base performance levels was
explained in Section VIII.D. This section explains the rationale for other
provisions in the proposed valve standard. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
The Committee used LDAR programs as the starting point because LDAR is an
effective means of detecting and eliminating emissions from seal failure. For
emission sources such as valves, emission standards do not provide appropriate
control procedures. As previously discussed, an equipment standard was not selected
because equipment, such as sealed bellows valves, cannot be uniformly applied to
all SOCMI processes. Moreover, proper use of equipment such as sealed bellows
valves, also requires a LDAR program because these valves can fail and can have
high emission rates upon failure.
a. Valve repair intervals. Repair of leaks soon after detection is a key
feature in the proposed rule and is a factor in the effectiveness of LDAR programs.
The Committee agreed to retain, in the negotiated standard, the repair intervals
(i.e., first attempt at repair in 5 days and repair within 15 days) specified in
the existing rules (e.g., 40 CFR part 61, subpart V). The repair intervals in the
existing standards are intended to provide effective emission reduction while
allowing the time necessary for scheduling of more complex repairs.
As in the existing equipment leak standards, the first attempt at repair is
required as soon as practicable after detection of the leak and no later than 5
days after discovery. Most valve repairs, such as tightening the bonnet bolts, can
be performed quickly, and 5 days should provide sufficient time to schedule simple
field repairs that do not require isolation of the valve from the process.
Attempting to repair a leak within 5 days will help identify those valves that
cannot be repaired with simple field repair or without shutdown of the process
unit. Valves that are not repairable by simple field procedures may require removal
from the process for repair. The 15-day repair interval provides sufficient time to
identify methods for isolating leaking valves for repair when isolation is
necessary and extensive repairs are required. Shorter repair intervals were not
selected because they could cause problems in performing effective repairs on
valves that must be isolated from the process.
The Committee also recognized that some valves cannot be repaired without
shutting down the process and that process shutdown is costly and may result in
greater emissions than delaying repair until the next scheduled shutdown. For these
reasons, the existing equipment leak regulations allow, under certain conditions,
delay of repair of these ''nonrepairables'' until the next facility shutdown. These
rules, in general, require that these valves be repaired during that shutdown. The
Committee reviewed the delay of repair provisions in the existing rules and
concluded that these provisions are appropriate and should be included in the
negotiated standard.
b. Nonrepairables. There was considerable discussion by the Committee of
whether those valves that cannot be repaired without a process unit shutdown should
be considered in determining the required monitoring frequency. One view was, if
unrepairable components were included, the potential for increased monitoring
frequency would provide a strong incentive for companies to take every possible
step to prevent leaks or to repair leaking valves. However, it was also recognized
that nonrepairable valves may not always be preventable and counting these could
result in higher leak percentages in process units or facilities that have
infrequent shutdowns. Moreover, increased monitoring frequency, if triggered by
nonrepairable components, is of little direct benefit since the nonrepairable
valves will remain unrepaired in spite of more frequent inspection. In light of
these considerations, the Committee sought to provide a means to provide motivation
for plants to limit the number of nonrepairable valves, while at the same time
avoiding imposition of unproductive costs or inadvertently increasing emissions.
The agreed upon approach achieves such a balance by excluding nonrepairable valves
up to a total of 1 percent of the valves in VHAP service from the calculation of
percent leaking valves for sampling periods after the leaking valve was first
identified.
c. Averaging periods for calculation of percent leaking. In establishing the
base performance levels in Phase III, the Committee considered the variability
inherent in measurements of equipment leaks and the variability in leak rates over
time. There was considerable debate as to whether measurements of equipment leaks
are sufficiently precise to warrant performance criteria or how to consider this
variability in the framework of the rule. The concept of a 2-period rolling average
was introduced as a means of ensuring that random fluctuations, of themselves, do
not force a facility into more frequent monitoring. In addition to the benefits of
averaging, the rolling average of 2 consecutive monitoring periods provides the
opportunity for the plant to take action, such as increased surveillance on a
subset of valves, based on higher than normal leak rates in a single period. It
also allows the owner or operator the necessary flexibility to implement
supplemental quality assurance programs to ensure that performance remains below
base levels. The 2-period rolling average is designed to encourage such plant
designed quality assurance programs and it does not penalize more frequent
inspection and maintenance. The Committee selected this approach for semiannual and
more frequent monitoring schedules.
The Committee did not choose to apply the 2-period average approach to annual
monitoring programs because of the low performance level required for annual
monitoring and concerns that effective control programs could be unintentionally
penalized due to a single high monitoring result. Specifically, a Committee member
described the effect of extreme weather that caused an unplanned shutdown and
resulted in an abnormally high number of leaking valves after startup. In this
case, the plant would have to revert to more frequent monitoring if only two
monitoring periods were considered even though the leak frequency was normally near
zero. Such a penalty would be inconsistent with the intent to encourage effective,
plant designed quality assurance programs that achieve continuing low leak
performance. In light of this, the Committee agreed to base the annual monitoring
criterion on the average of 3 out of 4 consecutive monitoring periods. This
averaging procedure is intended to provide relief for facilities with histories of
good performance from the effects of unusual and infrequent perturbations.
d. Credits for removing valves. In developing the negotiated standard, the
Committee recognized that minimizing the number of components in a process is one
of the most effective means for reducing leaks. Therefore, the Committee gave
careful consideration to formats for, or means of, providing an incentive to
minimize the number of components and the amount of credit provided.
For new process units, no mechanisms could be identified that would provide
such an incentive for all SOCMI processes. New unit designs differ widely from
process to process and it was not possible to define a norm or baseline from which
component reductions could be determined for new units. In contrast, equipment
count baselines can be established for existing process units at the time these
units become subject to the standards (for new units at startup) and can be used as
the basis for calculating credits for future reductions in the number of valves.
The Committee elected to provide these credits in the calculation of percent
leaking valves and the associated determination of monitoring {pg 62671} frequency.
The Committee also decided that use of the valve credit provisions should be at the
option of the owner or operator of the process unit because of the burden
associated with the recordkeeping needed to document the reduction.
The Committee considered credits for components removed ranging from full
credit to one-half credit for each component removed. The full credit option was
not selected because some Committee members thought that it could be used to show a
specific performance level without actually reducing the number of leaking valves.
Based on a desire to provide credit for reducing the number of components, while at
the same time ensuring that removal credits do not reduce the incentive for low-
leak performance in the remaining components, the Committee selected a 67-percent
credit for net reductions in the number of valves; i.e., two out of every three
valves removed from a process unit may continue to be counted in the total number
of valves when calculating leak frequency.
e. Unsafe- to-monitor and difficult-to-monitor valves. The Committee agreed
that the ''unsafe-to-monitor'' and the ''difficult-to-monitor'' provisions in the
existing equipment leak standards are appropriate and should be included in the
negotiated standard. Valves that are ''unsafe-to-monitor'' are defined as valves
that could expose personnel to imminent hazards from temperature, pressure, or
explosive process conditions. Examples of such locations include valves at the top
of or located nearby high pressure reactors. Valves that are unsafe-to-monitor
cannot be eliminated from new or existing units. The rule, therefore, would exempt
valves in unsafe locations from routine monitoring requirements, but would require
monitoring as frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor periods.
At existing process units, valves may be located where they can be reached only
through extraordinary means. The Committee concluded that the criteria for
difficult-to-monitor valves are appropriate and that routine monitoring should not
be required for valves that require elevating personnel more than 1.8 meters (6
feet) above any permanent support surface. This means that valves that cannot be
safely monitored from a step ladder or portable scaffolding could be classified as
inaccessible and exempt from routine monitoring. As in the existing rules, the
difficult-to- monitor exemption would be available only for existing units. The
Committee agreed that routine monitoring of valves that have the potential to leak
should be considered in the design of new units.
f. 250 valve exemption from Phase III monthly monitoring. The Committee agreed
to require a quarterly LDAR program in Phases I and II and in Phase III to base the
monitoring frequency on the performance level achieved. In Phase III, sources that
exceed the base performance level have the option of monthly monitoring or
participation in a QIP. For small plants, however, there was concern that either
monthly monitoring or QIP would present an unreasonable burden. Because small
plants may have limited technical and financial resources and the emissions from
small plants with a quarterly LDAR program may be relatively low, the Committee
established 250 valves per plant site as the level below which quarterly monitoring
would be the most frequent monitoring interval required. The Committee defined a
small plant as a site with 250 valves, or fewer, based on an industry estimate of
representative number of valves at small facilities and the estimated emissions
from such facilities.
5. Pump Standard
As discussed earlier in ''Development of Framework and Selection of MACT,'' the
Committee developed the pump standard using the provisions of the existing
standards as a starting point. The recommended standard consists of three phases of
requirements of increasing stringency and these are a combination of LDAR programs
and performance levels. The Committee also retained the existing provisions for DMS
systems and for sealless pumps (e.g., canned pumps). Figure 3 presents the
conceptual approach for the pump standard. The rationale for the framework and the
selection of the base performance levels was explained earlier in this notice. This
section explains the rationale for other provisions in the proposed pump standard.
{SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
As with valves, the Committee used LDAR programs as the starting point because
it is an effective means of detecting and controlling emissions and because these
sources are not amenable to application of an emission standard. As discussed
previously, the Committee did not establish a standard requiring the use of DMS
systems or sealless pump designs because this equipment cannot be used in all SOCMI
processes. Moreover, this equipment can fail and leaks can occur. Thus, proper
operation and maintenance of DMS systems and sealless pumps requires some
monitoring. For these reasons, the Committee developed a standard that requires use
of LDAR programs (including QIP's, if necessary) for conventional pumps, or
alternatively allows the use of DMS systems or sealless pump designs with periodic
monitoring.
a. Pump repair intervals. For the reasons discussed in the valve standard, the
Committee retained the 5-day first attempt and the 15-day repair intervals of the
existing rules in the pump standard. The Committee agreed that, with a minor
clarification, these repair intervals were appropriate. The Committee added
language to clarify the types of simple field repair that are intended to represent
first attempt at repair. This provision was added to reduce uncertainty regarding
compliance and to consider the increased maintenance that will be required with
leak definitions lower than 10,000 ppm.
The Committee also recognized that some pumps are not spared in chemical
process units and cannot be repaired without shutting down the process. The delay
of repair provisions for pumps in the existing standards were reviewed and the
Committee concluded that it was appropriate to include these in the proposed
standard.
b. Averaging period for calculation of percent leaking. During development of
the Phase III base performance level, concerns were expressed by Committee members
regarding the inherent variability of percent leaking calculations given the small
number of pumps typically present in process units and the inherent variability of
the leak measurements. While there were no data available to quantify the month-to-
month variability of pump leak frequencies, it was expected from general experience
that leak frequencies would be highly variable. It was also judged that leak
frequencies based on short time periods of data would be poor predictors of the
type of performance that the QIP was intended to remedy. The Committee, therefore,
concluded that pump leak frequencies should be averaged over a period of several
months to provide an indication of trends in performance. A rolling 6-month average
was selected by the Committee as an appropriate measure for indicating upward
trends and the need to take additional measures to reduce pump seal failures.
c. Calculation of percent leaking pumps. The calculation procedure specified in
the pump standard is designed to address additional concerns about the variability
of pump leak frequencies and to encourage the use of low leak design pumps and pump
seals. Because of the small number of pumps in typical process units, the Committee
provided the owner or operator the option of calculating percent leaking on a
process unit or plant site basis. This option was provided to allow the necessary
flexibility to consider further problems associated with small population
statistics and site specific concerns. The Committee also decided to require the
owner or operator to designate the basis for calculating percent leaking pumps in
the first monitoring period and to use that basis for all subsequent calculations.
This was required: (1) To preclude sources from using the most favorable basis for
the period and circumventing the intent of the pump standard, and (2) to simplify
enforcement.
The Committee also agreed that pumps equipped with DMS systems and sealless
pumps (e.g., canned or magnetic pumps) could be included in the calculation of
percent leaking pumps. For the purpose of this calculation, these pumps are assumed
not to leak. The calculation procedure, thus, gives credit for use of inherently
low leak designs and is intended to provide an incentive to install these designs.
The negotiated standard would exclude pumps that leak shortly after startup of
a process unit or startup of an individual pump after maintenance or repair
activities on that pump from the calculation of percent leaking for that monitoring
period. This exclusion was added because industry members of the Committee reported
that preinstallation testing does not necessarily ensure that a pump will not leak
when put into service. The industry members also thought that these leaks are not
indicative of a long term problem. The Committee concluded that such pumps should
be subject to the repair requirement, but that this problem is not indicative of
the type of poor performance that QIP is intended to remedy.
d. Requirements for low leak design pumps. The Committee retained, with slight
modifications, the provisions in the existing standards for pumps with DMS systems
and for sealless pumps (e.g., 40 CFR 61.242-2 (d) and (e)). For pumps with DMS
systems, the Committee agreed that it was only necessary to prohibit use of light
liquid VHAP as barrier fluids. The Committee allowed the use of heavy liquid VHAP
as barrier fluids because the operation and monitoring requirements for DMS systems
were considered sufficient to minimize any emissions from leaks from the DMS
system. The Committee also reevaluated the requirement for annual demonstration of
no detectable leaks from sealless pumps in the existing standards (e.g., 40 CFR
61.242-2(e)). The Committee considered the causes of failures of these designs and
concluded that weekly visual inspection would achieve equivalent performance and
assure that these pumps have no emissions. Consequently, under the negotiated pump
standard these sealless design pumps would be subject to a weekly visual inspection
work practice standard and would not be subject to an annual performance test
requirement to demonstrate no emissions.
6. Quality Improvement Program for Valves and Pumps
As discussed earlier in the ''Development of Framework and Selection of MACT''
section of this notice, the Committee recognized that there is uncertainty in the
achievability of the proposed performance levels by all SOCMI processes, given that
these levels are based on information from a small number of chemicals.
Consequently, the Committee developed provisions that would require process units
not achieving the base performance levels for valves to implement more frequent
monitoring or a QIP designed to ultimately achieve the performance levels and units
not achieving the base performance levels for pumps to implement a QIP. A process
unit not able to achieve the performance levels is not out of compliance if it
undertakes these additional measures. The provisions for quality improvement were
included in the framework to allow those owners or operators of process units that
do use all elements of MACT but do not achieve the base performance levels the
flexibility to develop process unit-specific, cost-effective methods for improving
emission performance. The QIP also provides an innovative mechanism for focusing
efforts on reducing emissions while avoiding lengthy enforcement actions.
Only a few process units are expected to use the valve QIP. It is expected that
{pg 62674} in the majority of cases, a systematic program of monitoring individual
components and repair of those that leak will achieve the performance levels of the
standards. It is recognized, however, that there may be situations where the
performance levels cannot be achieved due to specific process and operating
conditions. The valve and pump QIP's were designed to provide a mechanism for
improving performance in such situations. These QIP's prescribe programs that will
require a commitment to quality improvement and will involve many aspects of plant
operations (e.g., engineering and maintenance). This section presents the basis for
the specific provisions in the valve and pump QIP.
a. Valves. The Committee developed two alternative QIP's for valves and agreed
to restrict the availability of both of these alternatives. The QIP may be a
program that either demonstrates progress in reducing the percent leaking valves or
implements a technology review and improvement program. The decision to use either
of these alternative QIP's must be made during the first year of Phase III for both
new and existing units. Under either alternative QIP, after the process unit has
achieved less than 2 percent leaking valves, the owner or operator may elect to
continue the QIP. If the owner or operator discontinues the QIP, however, the QIP
may not be used in the future if the unit again exceeds 2 percent leaking valves.
In such cases, the owner or operator must implement monthly monitoring until the
unit has less than 2 percent leaking valves.
The availability of this QIP was restricted due to concerns of some Committee
members that the QIP might be used to delay improving performance. These Committee
members were concerned that, unrestricted, the QIP could provide for extended study
and would never result in any improvements in performance. The Committee also
agreed to allow facilities to remain indefinitely in the QIP after achieving less
than 2 percent leaking valves. This option was provided since it would assure
continued good performance and was consistent with the objectives of the QIP.
Demonstration of progress quality improvement program. This alternative QIP
would allow an owner or operator of a source to design and implement a site
specific program to achieve steady progress in lowering the percent leaking valves.
Any combination of measures such as increased maintenance frequency or replacement
of components may be used, provided it achieves the required reductions in percent
leaking valves.
Under this QIP, the owner or operator would be required to continue quarterly
monitoring and to demonstrate an average 10-percent reduction in the percent
leaking valves each quarter, based on a rolling average of 2 quarters of monitoring
data. If an owner or operator fails for 2 consecutive averaging periods to
demonstrate at least an overall average reduction of 10 percent per quarter, the
owner or operator must either implement a technology review and improvement QIP or
monthly monitoring. If this QIP is continued after a process unit has less than 2
percent leaking valves, the owner or operator must continue quarterly monitoring,
but does not have to continue to demonstrate the 10- percent reduction per quarter.
The Committee developed this QIP to provide an ad hoc performance limit for
those owners or operators interested in a less formal improvement program than that
specified in the technology review and improvement QIP. It was envisioned that this
alternative QIP would be useful primarily for those process units with leak
frequencies only slightly greater than 2 percent. The Committee judged that an
average reduction in percent leaking valves of 10 percent per quarter, calculated
as a rolling average of 2 quarters of monitoring data, would provide a reasonable
basis for determining whether progress was being made in approaching the 2 percent
performance level. Moreover, it was expected that this rate of reduction would
achieve the performance levels of the base monitoring program at a time comparable
to that expected under the technology review and improvement QIP. To ensure that
continual progress is achieved, the Committee required that units failing to show
progress, as measured by the reduction in percent leaking valves, either implement
monthly monitoring or a technology review and improvement QIP. With either of these
more structured alternatives, it was expected that adherence to the program would
reduce emissions.
Technology review and improvement quality improvement program. This QIP was
designed to provide a generic process for identifying appropriate solutions to
systematic problems. The Committee developed these provisions considering the
fundamentals of problem solving and quality improvement principles. The QIP is
structured as three classes of requirements: data collection and analysis,
performance trials, and quality assurance and improvement.
The principal basis for the provisions in the technology review and improvement
QIP was general knowledge of factors affecting equipment leaks and recent
experience in leak control at some chemical production units. Key principles used
in developing this QIP are: (1) The details of programs (e.g., specific designs or
equipment) are best determined by the source for the conditions in the process unit
and (2) good performance is the cumulative result of analysis and attention to
quality improvement over a period of several years. Specific information that the
Committee considered included the reported recent experience of one EO producer in
reducing and eliminating leaks from two process units. The experience of CMA's
phosgene panel and the process that was used over the past 10 or more years to
achieve their present performance were also considered. How the Committee weighed
the various factors in arriving at the details of this QIP is described in the
following paragraphs.
The Committee included a requirement for extensive data collection because
these data are essential to understanding the causes of problems and to development
of a corrective program. The QIP would require that specific information be
recorded on each valve's design, materials of construction, packing, type, service
conditions, and screening values. Engineering evaluations would also be required to
determine the causes of failure of all valves removed from the process unit due to
leaks. These records are required to ensure that the data necessary for evaluation
of causes of leaks is available.
The technology review and improvement QIP would require analysis of the data to
determine if there are specific problem services, operating conditions, valve
types, designs, and materials of construction. A second, and equally important,
objective of the analysis would be to identify valve designs and operating
practices that will operate with less than 2 percent leaking valves under
conditions comparable to those in the process problem areas. Such valve designs or
technologies are referred to in this QIP as superior performing valve technologies.
Because process conditions and causes of valve leakage do vary among process units
and the combinations of equipment and procedures that are ''superior'' may differ,
superior performing valve technology is not specified exclusively in terms of
specific valve types or designs. Rather, superior performance is {pg 62675} defined
as including any combination of valve type and process, operating practices, and
maintenance practices that achieves the base performance level of the standard.
This flexibility was provided because it was recognized that best performing
equipment has to be determined in context of the application. In some cases,
superior performance may be achievable by use of a different packing material in
the valve; in other cases, use of a different valve design or design changes to the
process configuration may be required. Such specific decisions are best determined
by the source owner or operator.
These superior performing valve technologies may be identified through analysis
of the process unit (or plant) data, or through review of available literature and
the experience of other facilities. Both the process unit (or plant) data and
outside experience must be considered in identification of candidate superior
performing valve technologies for performance trials. This was specified to ensure
that a comprehensive assessment was conducted. For similar reasons, the Committee
agreed that the analysis and identification of better performing equipment may be
conducted through an inter- or intra-company program and may encompass a single
process unit, a company, or group of process units.
The Committee decided that the first data analysis must be completed no later
than 18 months after the start of Phase III. This schedule was established to
balance both the time necessary for understanding the problem(s) and the need to
achieve a reasonable rate of progress. The data analysis must be reevaluated each
year the process unit is in the QIP and has 2 or more percent leaking valves. This
was included to ensure continued improvement.
Performance trials would be required where the data analysis for the process
unit does not identify any superior performing valve designs or technologies that
can be applied to the process unit. Performance trials of candidate equipment will
ensure that possible solutions are evaluated and that application of new equipment
or operating procedures makes good engineering sense. These trials must be
conducted as of an experimental program that identifies all the designs and
technologies to be evaluated, the stages of the evaluation, the range of planned
test conditions, estimated duration of each stage, and documentation of the
conclusions for each test. The purpose of the performance trials provision is to
determine if candidate equipment or operation and maintenance procedures can be
used in the conditions in the process unit. Because these performance trials are
primarily intended to be tests of feasibility of application to the process
conditions, the number of valves in the trial program was set at a realistic number
for experimental evaluation. The performance trials are not intended to provide an
estimate of the leak frequency. The QIP would require performance trials for 1
percent of the valves up to a maximum of 20 valves in a single process unit or 50
valves in a plant site study. The first performance trials shall be completed by 24
months after the start of Phase III, or 6 months after conclusion of the first data
analysis. At that time, the owner or operator shall have identified valve designs
or technologies that combined with appropriate process, operation, and maintenance
practices operate with low emissions. The owner or operator shall continue
performance trials until a superior performing technology is identified, the
process unit has less than 2 percent leaking valves, or there are no additional
technically feasible candidate technologies remaining. As additional information
and experience are gained in the QIP, the list of identified low emission
performing equipment shall be updated.
The owner or operator would be required to prepare a quality assurance plan
that is based on the results of the data analysis, engineering evaluations of
valves, and the performance trials. The plan must include procedures that will
ensure that each replacement valve is a quality-assured valve. These valves must be
valve technologies that have been identified as superior emission performance
technology for that category of valves, unless no superior performers could be
identified. Where this occurs, the valves must be one of the lowest emission
technologies identified for the specific application. The quality assurance plan
must specify minimum design standards for each category of valves established by
the owner or operator, include a written procedure for bench testing of valves for
leaks, provide an audit procedure for quality control of purchased equipment, and
include procedures to ensure quality of any rebuilt equipment. The quality
assurance plan for replacement valves must be implemented as long as the process
unit remains in the QIP. These provisions were included to guarantee there would be
continued improvement in the emission performance of the process unit.
This quality assurance plan is to be established by the start of the third year
of Phase III for most plant sites and by the start of the fourth year of Phase III
for plant sites that meet the exemption for small facilities.
The Committee exempted plant sites that have fewer than 400 valves and that are
owned by a company with fewer than 100 employees from the requirement to conduct
performance trials. This exemption from performance trials was provided to consider
the limited technical resources available for conducting research at smaller
companies and to minimize any adverse cost impacts of the standard on small
companies. The Committee selected the exemption criteria based on typical valve
counts in a small process unit and an industry estimate of the typical number of
employees for a small company. These facilities were also allowed an additional
year to develop a quality assurance plan and to begin using quality assured valves
that will operate with low emissions in the process unit. The Committee provided
this additional time to allow these smaller facilities the time needed to obtain
the necessary information from vendors, literature, and other sources.
The Committee considered, but rejected, provisions that would have required
mandatory replacement of some proportion of the valves in the process unit each
year. Such a provision was not established for valves for several reasons. Leaking
valves can only be repaired on-line a limited number of times before they can no
longer be adjusted to achieve lower emissions and must be replaced. Typically, on
an industry wide basis, 7 to 10 percent of the valves are reportedly replaced each
year for reasons other than leaking. If valves that are replaced (for any reason)
are replaced with quality assured valves appropriate to the service conditions, an
improvement in emission performance can be achieved at nominal additional cost. The
Committee judged that the normal replacement of 7 to 10 percent of the valves each
year was a reasonable rate of improvement considering that a mandatory replacement
program would cause very high expenditures for negligible benefit.
b. Pumps. The Committee developed a technology review and improvement QIP as a
means for process units (or plants) to ultimately achieve the performance level of
the standard. Only this type of QIP was employed because the Committee believed
that the only practical solution for pumps was an engineering analysis to determine
the causes of systematic problems (e.g., design, application, etc.). Like the
technology review and improvement QIP for valves, this QIP was designed to provide
a generic approach to evaluate {pg 62676} the problem, identify solutions, and
improve equipment and operations. The Committee also recognized that sufficient
time must be provided to identify both the causes of leaks and cost-effective
solutions. Thus, the pump QIP specifies similar requirements on the same schedule
as the valve QIP. The pump QIP differs from the valve QIP in several respects due
to differences between the two standards and between the equipment. This section
presents the rationale for the differences between the provisions for the two QIP
and the additional factors that were considered in developing the pump QIP.
Unlike the valve provisions, the pump QIP would not be an option for selection
by the owner or operator and there would be no restrictions on when a process unit
(or plant) enters a QIP. An owner or operator must comply with the requirements of
the QIP whenever the greater of either 10 percent of the pumps or three pumps in a
process unit (or at a plant) leak. A process unit must remain in the QIP as long as
the percent leaking pumps is greater than the base performance level.
Theoretically, a process unit (or plant) could be subject to the QIP provisions
more than one time. In cases where a process unit (or plant) again becomes subject
to the QIP, the QIP must be resumed starting at the performance trials stage.
Resumption at the performance trials was specified, rather than the stage at which
the unit exited the QIP, to ensure that the QIP results in a reasonable rate of
progress toward the base performance level. Furthermore, some Committee members
thought adequate data and analysis would be available from the earlier QIP. It was
also assumed that owners and operators of process units (or plants) with pump leak
frequencies near the base performance level would be prepared to conduct
performance trials should the leak frequency increase. Several Committee members
also thought that resumption at performance trials was appropriate for process
units (or plants) that reenter the pump QIP after completion of performance trials.
These additional trials were judged necessary since technology (e.g., pump seal
materials, design, etc.) may have changed since the previous evaluations and
additional features may need investigation.
As with the technology review and improvement QIP for valves, the Committee
required that a comprehensive data base be developed on pump type, design,
materials of construction, service characteristics, and screening values. The
engineering evaluation requirement differs in that inspections are required for
pumps removed from the process due to leaks and for pump seal designs associated
with high failure rates. These inspections are required to ensure that evaluations
are of equipment with apparently fundamental design or application problems and are
not of equipment at the end of the design life. Both pumps and pump seals were
included to ensure that all possible sources of leakage (e.g., split casings on
large pumps) are included.
As in the valve QIP, the data are analyzed to identify problem areas and
services as well as to identify superior performing pump technologies. Again, these
technologies are not considered to solely include particular pump or seal designs.
Superior emission performance technology may include material or design changes to
existing pumps, pump seals, seal support systems, use of multiple mechanical seals,
or replacement by a canned pump or a magnetically driven pump. Any combination of
equipment and operating practices that achieves the specified level of performance
is considered to be superior emission performance technology.
The pump performance trial provision sets a lower limit than the valve QIP does
on the number of performance trials; for pumps the number of tests is 1 percent of
the pumps up to a maximum of 2 for a single process unit and 5 for a plant. The
smaller number of trials is specified because pump populations are much smaller
than valve populations. Furthermore, with pumps there will be far fewer changes in
operation, maintenance, and design parameters that can be evaluated. Again, because
the purpose of the trials is to test the feasibility of using the technology and
not to predict the leak frequency, a large number of trials is not necessary.
The quality assurance plan for pumps would have the same basic objectives and
requirements as does the valve program. The minor differences between the pump and
valve requirements arise because bench testing of pumps is not a useful predictor
of on-line performance and was not required.
For pumps in general chemical service, the Committee decided to require
replacement of 20 percent per year of the pumps or pump seals with equipment,
operations, and maintenance practices identified as superior emission performance
technology. As discussed earlier, this superior emission performance technology is
not considered to be exclusively represented by specific designs such as canned
pumps or specific types of pump seals such as DMS. Rather, it is envisioned as
consisting of the combination of pump and seal design combined with appropriate
process, operation, and maintenance practices that will achieve the performance
level of the proposed standard. The mandatory replacement provision was included
for general chemical service pumps to ensure that process units (or plants)
(ultimately) achieve demonstrated performance levels. The Committee intended for
this provision to serve as an incentive to improve performance.
Mandatory replacement provisions were not applied to pumps in food/medical
service or to pumps handling polymerizing monomers since in both cases no
demonstrated performance level or technology could be identified. No data were
available to the Committee that showed the performance level that could be achieved
by these services. As explained earlier in discussion of the proposed pump
standard, the Committee also concluded that DMS may not be appropriate for use on
pumps in these services. Consequently, the Committee agreed that replacement
equipment must be quality assured and be one of the lowest emission performance
technologies identified.
7. Standard for Connectors in Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid Service
As discussed earlier, the Committee developed a standard for connectors that
consists of a LDAR program in which the monitoring frequency is based on the
percent leaking connectors and a leak is defined as an instrument reading of 500
ppm or higher. This standard would not be phased in and would apply as soon as the
rule is effective for a process unit. The Committee judged that phase in of the
standard was unnecessary since once connectors are leak tight they should remain
leak tight. Figure 4 presents the conceptual approach to the connector standard. In
addition to the basic LDAR program, the Committee also established several
provisions to address situations unique to connectors. This section explains the
rationale for these additional provisions. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
As with other equipment, the Committee judged that it is not technically or
economically feasible to establish an emission standard for connectors. A work
practice standard, consisting of a LDAR program and a base performance level, was
developed because it provided a practical means of detecting and controlling
emissions.
a. Connector repair intervals. For the reasons discussed in the valve standard,
the Committee applied the 5-day first attempt at repair and the 15-day repair
interval of the existing rules to connectors. These repair intervals were
considered appropriate for instances where leaks can be reduced by tightening bolts
or where the connector can be isolated from the process. The Committee also
recognized that most connectors cannot be isolated from the process and cannot be
repaired without shutting down the process. In such cases, the Committee agreed
that delay of repair until the next process unit shutdown is appropriate and the
delay of repair provisions in the existing rules should be allowed for connectors.
In some situations, repair of a leaking connector would expose personnel to
imminent danger. Therefore, a special provision was added to the connector standard
that allows the owner or operator to designate unsafe-to-repair connectors and to
delay repair of these connectors until the next process unit shutdown. Connectors
which are unsafe-to-repair are those that would expose repair personnel to imminent
hazards from temperature, pressure, or explosive process conditions. An example of
such a hazard would be connectors on high pressure lines where tightening a bolt
could cause failure and result in a major or catastrophic release.
b. Nonrepairable connectors. The Committee recognized that nonrepairable
connectors may not be completely preventable and that increased monitoring
frequency, if triggered by nonrepairable components, would be of little benefit. As
with valves, the Committee sought to strike a balance between providing an
incentive to limit the number of nonrepairable connectors and avoiding imposition
of unproductive costs. The agreed approach allows excluding up to 2 percent of the
connectors from the calculation of percent leaking if disturbed connectors are
monitored for leaks within 3 months. The Committee allowed more connectors than
valves to be excluded from the calculation (i.e., 2 versus 1 percent) because it is
more likely that connectors cannot be removed from the process and repair would
have to be delayed until the next process unit shutdown.
The Committee also allowed owners or operators the option of foregoing followup
monitoring of disturbed connectors in exchange for not excluding nonrepairable
connectors in the calculation of percent leaking connectors. This option provides
flexibility and encourages owners or operators to develop their own program to
ensure low leak frequencies for connectors. Exercising this option would mean that
a process unit would have to have less than 0.5 percent leaking connectors to
monitor less frequently than annually. The Committee also agreed to allow an owner
or operator to switch from one option to the other provided the new option begins
with annual monitoring. This optional provision was developed because of some
Committee members' concerns that the administrative burdens would exceed any
benefits provided.
c. Calculation of percent leaking. For connectors, the Committee decided that
the percent leaking should be calculated for each monitoring period and should not
be based on rolling averages of several monitoring periods. This decision was based
on the judgment that properly designed, constructed, and installed connectors
should operate for an extended time before failure and exhibit a low frequency of
random failures. The results of a single monitoring period were, therefore,
expected to provide a reliable estimate of the actual leak frequency.
d. Credits for removing connectors. For the reasons discussed previously for
valves, the Committee elected to provide partial credit in the calculation of
percent leaking connectors for connectors permanently removed from the process
unit. If a connector is removed from a process unit by welding the connector or by
welding the pipe together, the integrity of the weld must be verified to be
eligible for removed connector credits. This was required to ensure that credits
are only provided for successful welds around the entire circumference. Like the
valve credit, this credit is included to provide an incentive for owners of
facilities to minimize the number of connectors.
e. Unsafe-to-monitor and inaccessible connectors. The Committee added
provisions to the connector standard to consider situations where connectors may be
unsafe to monitor or inaccessible. Like valves, unsafe-to-monitor connectors are
connectors that could expose personnel to imminent hazards from temperature,
pressure, or explosive conditions. These connectors must be monitored as frequently
as practicable during safe-to-monitor periods.
The Committee also exempted inaccessible connectors and glass or glass-lined
connectors from the requirement for routine monitoring. Inaccessible connectors are
defined as buried; insulated in a manner that prevents access by the monitor probe;
obstructed by equipment or piping; or not accessible from a 7.6-meter (25-foot)
portable scaffold on the ground and greater than 1.8 meters (6 feet) above a
support surface. These different categories of inaccessible connectors were
identified as presenting situations where monitoring would be extremely difficult,
dangerous, or physically impossible. Specifically, buried and obstructed connectors
were exempted because it is not possible to monitor these connectors. Insulated
connectors were exempted because removal of the insulation from cold systems could
cause leaks due to thermal stress and would be very costly. Removal of insulation
from hot systems would create a safety hazard in addition to being costly.
Connectors that cannot be reached from a 7.6-meter (25-foot) portable scaffold or
from a step ladder would also present a safety hazard to monitoring personnel.
Glass and glass-lined connectors were exempted because the potential for on-line
repair by tightening bolts is limited due to the possibility of breakage and
attendant accidental releases. For both inaccessible and glass or glass-lined
connectors, however, if leaks are detected by visual, audible, or other means, the
leaking connector shall be repaired no later than 15 days after the leak is
detected.
f. Provisions for screwed connectors. The connector standard would include a
provision that allows an owner or operator the option of exempting existing screwed
connectors of 2 inches or smaller nominal diameter from routine monitoring provided
these connectors are monitored once after the standard takes effect and after the
seal is broken or disturbed. Any leaking connectors shall be repaired. Some
Committee members felt that it would be very costly to monitor large numbers of
small connectors in some process units and the emission reduction achieved would be
small.
The Committee agreed to include this provision for several reasons. The general
opinion of engineers on the Committee was that screwed connectors once properly
threaded and leak tight should stay leak tight, since there are no moving parts and
the seal does not rely on gaskets or other materials that can deteriorate. Thus, an
initial check and {pg 62679} one-time followup monitoring after opening the
connector were judged to provide sufficient assurance that the connectors are leak
tight. However, because the available data were insufficient to demonstrate this,
new screwed connectors of any size and existing screwed connectors greater than 2
inches nominal diameter were not allowed this option and are treated the same as
any other connector. The standard would also require that data on the leak
frequency of screwed connectors be reported. The EPA intends to review this
information and, based on the findings, will consider whether to amend the standard
to require routine monitoring for existing screwed connectors of 2 inches, or
smaller, nominal diameter, or to apply the initial check and one- time follow-up to
all connectors.
8. Provisions for Other Equipment
a. Compressors. As with other equipment, an emission standard was not developed
for compressors because application of available measurement methods is not
technically or economically feasible. The requirements in the existing standards
were judged to be MACT and were used as the basis for the negotiated standard for
compressors. The standard requires the use of mechanical seals equipped with a
barrier fluid system and controlled degassing vents or enclosure of the compressor
seal area and venting of emissions through a closed vent system to a control
device. These systems can provide control efficiencies approaching 100 percent.
b. Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service. The negotiated standard, like
the existing standards, is based on the use of rupture disk systems or control
devices, which are considered to effectively eliminate emissions, when properly
installed, maintained, and operated. The existing equipment leak standards
establish a ''no detectable emission limit'' of 500 ppm for control techniques that
eliminate emissions. The Committee considered redefining the emission limit for
pressure relief devices, but agreed that there were insufficient data to redefine
the limit below 500 ppm. The general opinion was that a 500 ppm standard would
ensure essentially zero emissions and would ensure that an effective control system
would not be found to be in violation due to residual VHAP in the vent exit.
Therefore, the negotiated rule would require that pressure relief devices be
operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, except
during pressure relief.
The 500 ppm above background limit would not apply to discharges through the
relief device during pressure relief, because the function of relief devices is to
discharge process fluid, thereby reducing dangerously high pressures within the
equipment. Relief devices must operate with an instrument reading of less than 500
ppm above background within 5 days after such a discharge. A definition of ''set
pressure'' was added to the standard to clarify that set pressure is where a
properly operating pressure relief device begins to open to relieve atypical
process system operating pressure.
As an alternative to rupture disks and other techniques that will achieve less
than 500 ppm above background, owners or operators may vent pressure relief devices
to closed vent systems connected to a control device.
c. Sampling connection systems. The Committee agreed the closed-purge sampling,
closed-loop sampling, and closed vent vacuum systems in the existing rules
represent MACT for sampling connection systems. Closed-purge sampling systems
eliminate emissions due to purging by either returning the purge material directly
to the process or by collecting the purge in a collection system which is not open
to the atmosphere for recycle or disposal. Closed-loop sampling systems also
eliminate emissions due to purging by returning process fluid to the process
through an enclosed system that is not directly vented to the atmosphere. Closed
vent vacuum systems capture and transport the purged process fluid to a control
device. An emission limit was not specified because measuring mass emissions from
sampling systems would require enclosing each system (i.e., bagging), a measurement
method which is time-consuming, costly, and impractical. A concentration limit is
also not feasible because although the VOC and VHAP control efficiency on a closed-
purge or closed-loop sampling system is approximately 100 percent, some VOC and
VHAP could be emitted during its transfer to a closed collection device or during
its ultimate disposal.
Because emission standards cannot feasibly be prescribed for sampling
connection systems, several alternative formats were considered and equipment
standards found to be most appropriate. The proposed standards for sampling
connection systems in the negotiated rule would require the use of closed-purge or
closed-loop sampling equipment or a closed vent system. In situ sampling systems
would be exempted from these regulations.
d. Open-ended valves or lines. Emissions from open- ended valves or lines can
be eliminated, except when the line is used for draining, venting, or sampling
operations, by enclosing the open end by a cap, plug, or a second valve. The
control efficiency associated with these techniques is approximately 100 percent
and is considered to be MACT. As with other items of equipment, establishing an
emission limit is neither effective nor technologically feasible. Therefore, the
Committee based the standard on the combination of equipment and operational
requirements in the existing rules.
The negotiated rule would require the use of a cap, plug, blind flange, or a
second valve or other equipment to close the open-ended valve or line. To ensure
the proper operation of the equipment, open-ended lines are also covered by
operational standards. If a second valve is used to close the open end, the
proposed standards would require the upstream valve to be closed first. After the
upstream valve is completely closed, the downstream valve would be closed. This
operational requirement is necessary in order to prevent trapping process fluid
between the two valves, which could result in a situation equivalent to the
uncontrolled open-ended line.
e. Product accumulator vessels. The technique for controlling product
accumulator vessels is to connect the vessel to a closed vent system and control
device. Anything in compliance with the requirements for closed vent systems and
control devices is acceptable.
f. Control devices. Control devices would be used to dispose of VHAP captured
in closed vent systems from barrier fluid degassing systems and enclosed pump and
compressor seal areas. In all cases, these control devices would receive streams
with low and intermittent flow rates. These control devices would in some cases be
designed to dispose of organic streams from other sources in the plant, so that the
VHAP streams may contribute a very small percentage of the total loading on the
control device. Because it would be technologically and economically impractical to
measure very low-flow streams and differentiate these streams from others, an
emission standard was not proposed for these control devices.
Design requirements for control devices were considered to ensure that
appropriate emission reductions would be achieved from control devices used in
conjunction with closed vent systems. Enclosed combustion sources, flares, and
vapor recovery systems were considered as control devices for the closed vent
system. The proposed {pg 62680} standard requires that these control devices reduce
organic emissions by 95 percent or meet minimum design requirements. The minimum
design requirements specified for enclosed combustion devices is to provide a
minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds at a minimum temperature of 760 degrees C
(1400 degrees F). Flares used as control devices to comply with the negotiated
standard shall comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18.
Vapor recovery systems would also be allowed as control devices for VHAP from
closed vent systems. A control efficiency of at least 95 percent was chosen as the
design requirement because it is the highest control efficiency that has been
demonstrated consistently for vapor recovery systems such as carbon adsorption or
condensation units.
g. Agitators. Agitators were not evaluated during regulatory development of the
existing regulations and are not presently regulated by any standard. Therefore,
very limited information is available on this equipment. The Committee determined
that agitators should be included in the negotiated standard for several reasons.
First, a limited amount of screening data indicate that agitators may be a
significant source of emissions. Second, agitators are technologically similar to
pumps, and, like pumps, emissions can be controlled using seal technology. However,
agitators have longer and larger diameter shafts than pumps and produce greater
tangential shaft loadings. The performance of pump seal systems, therefore, cannot
be used to estimate agitator seal performance. Considering this and the potential
for large leaks, the Committee agreed to require a monthly LDAR program only and to
define a leak as a concentration of 10,000 ppm or higher. This program will require
replacement of agitator seals with significant leaks and will encourage development
of effective bearing and seal systems.
h. Instrumentation systems. The Committee created this equipment category to
address industry members concerns with application of LDAR programs to equipment
used in monitoring process operations. Small diameter tubing and other components
are used to convey process samples to analyzers to determine chemical composition
and to instruments such as pressure and flow transducers. Instrumentation systems
typically contain valves 0.5 inch in nominal diameter or less and connectors 0.75
inch nominal diameter or less and are located in a confined area such that
monitoring of individual components is generally infeasible. Because these systems
provide critical process operating information, they are subject to frequent
surveillance and maintenance to assure the reliability of measurements. Leaking
equipment in these systems would be readily detected by changes in temperature,
pressure, flow rates, or by observation. Additionally, it is common practice in the
industry after maintenance or repair to verify the integrity of these systems by
soap bubble testing or pressure checks. Therefore, a routine LDAR program would be
redundant and would provide no benefit. The Committee concluded for these reasons
that it was appropriate to develop alternative provisions for these systems.
The Committee judged that it was appropriate to require repair of leaking
instrumentation systems in a timely manner and agreed to treat these systems in a
manner similar to equipment in heavy liquid service. In addition, the Committee
agreed that monitoring of individual components in instrumentation systems by
Method 21 is not necessary if the leak is repaired and the repair is verified. The
verification may be by soap testing, a pressure check, or any other visible,
audible, olfactory, or other means.
i. Miscellaneous. As in the existing equipment leak standards, pumps, valves,
connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service (HAP fluids with vapor pressures
less than 0.3 kPa at 20 degrees C), and pressure relief devices in light liquid or
heavy liquid service would be excluded from the routine monitoring and inspection
requirements. However, if leaks are detected from these sources, the same allowable
repair interval that applies to pumps, valves, connectors, and compressors would
apply. These sources were excluded from routine monitoring on the basis that they
contribute only a very small portion of overall emissions from a process unit and
including them in the monitoring and equipment requirements was not considered
reasonable.
9. Alternative Standards
Under the provisions of section 112(h) of the Act, if the Administrator
establishes work practice, equipment, design, or operational standards, then the
Administrator must allow use of alternative means of emission reductions if an
owner or operator can demonstrate emission reductions equivalent to that achieved
by the standards. Generally, alternative means of emission reduction are based on
specific circumstances at individual plant sites and must be handled individually.
During the course of the Committee's deliberations, however, two situations were
identified where development of generic alternative standards was appropriate.
These situations were batch processes and enclosed process units. Consequently, the
negotiated rule includes alternative standards for batch operations and for process
units located in enclosed buildings as well as general provisions for demonstration
of equivalency.
a. Batch processes. At one of the early meetings of the Committee, the problems
associated with application of LDAR programs to batch processes were raised. At
continuous processes, equipment can be monitored rapidly, one after another on an
established route, without consideration of the process schedule because there is
always process fluid in the lines. For several reasons, rapid monitoring of one
component after another is not possible at some batch processes. This is
particularly true for processes such as those in the pharmaceutical industry where
equipment may not be dedicated to a particular process and where different
components are used in different batch operations to produce different products. In
any particular configuration, process fluid may flow through a series of valves,
connectors, and a pump into a reactor. Several hours later, the process fluid would
exit the reactor through other equipment for subsequent processing steps and
storage. Also, the equipment used will contain process fluids for only a brief
period during the batch (e.g., a few minutes per batch). In this case, the
monitoring team would have to wait for an extended time between screening equipment
on the upstream and downstream side of the reactor. Equipment not used in a
particular configuration could not be monitored until the equipment is in actual
use. Thus, it would be difficult to schedule monitoring of equipment and the cost,
both in total and on a component basis, could be much higher than for a continuous
process. Moreover, this intermittent operation and low time-in-use of individual
components also results in lower annual emissions.
For these reasons, the Committee formed a batch process subcommittee to develop
alternative approaches that could be used for batch processes. This subcommittee
explored various alternatives which would ensure effective control while
considering the nature of batch operations. The subcommittee developed alternative
procedures that allow owners or operators of batch processes the option of meeting
standards similar to those for continuous processes or of periodically {pg 62681}
pressure testing the batch equipment. If the owner or operator elects to monitor
equipment for leaks, the monitoring frequency is prorated to the time in use and
the equipment may be monitored when it is in VHAP service or in use with a
surrogate VOC or other detectable compound. These modifications to the continuous
standards were designed to provide roughly comparable provisions for batch
processes. In fact, as time in use increases to 75 percent and higher, the
monitoring frequency becomes the same for both continuous and batch processes.
The alternative provisions allow pressure testing of batch equipment using
either a gas or a liquid. The Committee allowed use of either procedure because
hydrostatic testing can be safer than high pressure tests using gases and either
technique can be used to demonstrate the equipment is not leaking. The criteria
specified as defining a leak were based on a limited amount of field testing by the
pharmaceutical industry, general industry practice for pressure tests, and the
EPA's experience with vapor-tightness testing of tank trucks and railcars. Although
little information is available for direct comparison, the Committee concluded,
based on general knowledge and engineering considerations, that the relative cost
and effectiveness of the alternative procedures for batch processes should be
roughly comparable to those for continuous processes.
b. Enclosed processes. Processes operated in buildings or enclosures maintained
under negative pressure and vented to the atmosphere through a 95- percent
efficient control device would be exempted from the LDAR monitoring requirements.
This alternative standard was developed because members of the Committee were aware
of cases where processes have been isolated from personnel because of safety
hazards. In such instances, no benefit will be achieved by monitoring the
equipment, and it may present a safety hazard to monitoring personnel.
10. Delay of Repair
As previously noted, the Committee recognized that there are circumstances when
repair of equipment is not feasible without a process unit shutdown and this may
result in greater emissions than delaying repair until the next scheduled shutdown.
The Committee, therefore, included the delay of repair provisions in the existing
rules in the negotiated standard. A primary consideration of the Committee in this
was whether the provisions reflected the actual feasibility of repairing equipment
and avoided extended delays in returning a unit to production after it is shutdown
briefly due to unforeseen circumstances. Based on this evaluation, the Committee
agreed to modify the definition of ''process unit shutdown'' to reflect more
accurately those situations where it was judged reasonable to require clearance of
process materials and repair of equipment. The revised definition specifies that it
must be technically feasible to clear process material from the unit consistent
within safety constraints and that under certain circumstances unscheduled
shutdowns of more than 24 hrs. duration are not classified as a shutdown. These
conditions are: (1) The shutdown must be for a period shorter than the time
required to clear process materials and start up the unit and (2) it must result in
greater emissions than delaying the repair until the next scheduled shutdown.
The delay of repair provisions in the negotiated standard also include the
other types of delay of repair provisions in the existing standards. The negotiated
standard would allow delay of repair for spared equipment that does not remain in
VHAP service. Delay of repair would also be allowed for valves, connectors, and
agitators if the owner or operator shows that emissions of purged materials from
repair would be greater than the emissions likely to result from delay of repair.
When the equipment is repaired, the purged material must be destroyed or recovered
in a control device that complies with the requirement for closed-vent systems and
control devices. Delay of repair beyond a process unit shutdown for valves would
also be allowed when unforeseen circumstances deplete valve assembly supplies. The
owner or operator would have to document that valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked. This delay of repair may not be extended beyond the next
process unit shutdown unless the next shutdown occurs sooner than 6 months after
the first shutdown. It is expected that this delay of repair provision will seldom
be used.
As with the other types of equipment, delay of repair would be allowed for
pumps that cannot be repaired without a process unit shutdown. Delay of repair, up
to 6 months after detecting a leak, would also be allowed when the owner or
operator determines that repair of the pump requires replacement of a SMS system
with a DMS system, a pump with no externally actuated shaft, or a closed-vent
control system. This provision differs slightly from the present standards in that
it allows delay of repair for replacement of single seal pumps with other types of
low leak technology. Delay of repair is not expected for most situations, however,
because pumps are commonly spared.
G. Test Methods and Procedures
The negotiated standard basically retains the use of Method 21 to detect leaks
of organic compounds from equipment; however, several modifications were made to
the existing procedures. These modifications consist of changes to the calibration
gases required, addition of procedures for response factor correction, and addition
of procedures for pressure testing of batch processes. The bases for the changes to
the provisions are described in this section.
Method 21 specifies procedures for measuring the concentration of leaks of VOC
near individual pieces of process equipment. This method requires the use of a
portable organic vapor analyzer that meets the method's performance specifications
for response, linearity, flow rate, and safety. The instrument detector may be any
that meets the methods specifications and performance criteria. Detector types that
are believed to meet Method 21 specifications for most VHAP include catalytic
oxidation, flame ionization, infrared absorption, and photoionization. Although
these detectors have been shown to be broadly applicable to measurements of organic
compounds, no one detector can be universally applied to all organic compounds:
some VHAP may require evaluation of other types of detectors.
The negotiated standard would require calibration of the portable organic vapor
analyzer before each monitoring survey with calibration gas mixtures consisting of
methane and air and with zero gas. For this standard, zero gas has been specified
as containing less than 0.2 ppm VOC in air. Zero gas was specified at a
concentration below the less than 10 ppm criterion used in the existing standards
in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 to improve the quality of measurements near 0 ppm. The
negotiated standard would also require calibration with mixtures of methane in air
at concentrations near each of the various leak definitions. Therefore, in Phase
III, calibration gases with VOC concentrations near 10,000 ppm, 5,000 ppm, 2,000
ppm, 1,000 ppm, and 500 ppm may be required at some plant sites, depending upon the
equipment that is in use. To reduce the number of calibration gases required, the
Committee agreed to allow the option of using an analyzer calibrated at a higher
concentration, up to 2,000 ppm, for monitoring equipment subject to a lower {pg
62682} leak definition. This provision was included since that procedure will
introduce only a small positive bias (i.e., observed values will be slightly higher
than actual) in the instrument readings and the results would be acceptable for
demonstrating compliance.
The negotiated standard would also limit the acceptable range of response
factors. The response factor is a factor which adjusts for differences in
instrument sensitivity or response to the compounds being measured and to the
reference compound. For the negotiated standard, the reference compound is methane.
These provisions were added to ensure that the effect of the standard is not
significantly altered by the instrument used in conducting the monitoring surveys
or the stream composition. Correction of instrument readings for response factors
is required where the individual response factors, at 500 ppm, for the VHAP that
account for 90 percent, or more, by weight of organic materials in the process
stream are 3 or greater. The requirement was structured in this manner to avoid
imposition of unproductive costs. Specifically, the 90 percent by weight criterion
was included in order to avoid the need to adjust response factors due to trace
contaminants in process streams. For many compounds, response factors may not be
available and cannot be obtained without considerable difficulty (e.g., solids,
explosive substances, etc.). Where these compounds represent only a small fraction
of the process stream composition, it was judged inappropriate to require
development of response factors. The provision is included as a series of checks on
compounds in the process streams and on the process streams. The steps are intended
to eliminate quickly those streams for which response factor correction is
obviously unnecessary. The first step looks at the individual compounds used in the
process. If no compound in the process has a response factor of 3 or greater, then
no further evaluation is needed. The second step looks at the individual streams to
identify any that contain an individual compound or have a weighted average factor
that is 3 or greater. The third step looks at streams with weighted average factors
of 3 or more and considers whether to adjust the instrument readings or use another
instrument or calibration gas.
The Committee also added procedures for pressure testing of batch process
equipment to the negotiated standard. These procedures were derived from general
industry practice and experience with gas and liquid pressure tests on equipment
and EPA experience with testing tank trucks and railcars for vapor-tightness
demonstration.
The negotiated standard also would specify that Method 18 is to be used to
determine the VHAP content of process fluids whenever that is in question. Method
18 is a general procedure for gas chromatographic analysis of organic compounds.
The method can be used to analyze roughly 90 percent of gaseous organic compounds
emitted by sources. In most cases, engineering calculations, knowledge of the
process, or analyses of the process should provide sufficient demonstration of VHAP
content and Method 18 analysis will not be required.
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Owners or operators of a process unit that would be covered by the negotiated
standard are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
standard as well as those prescribed in the proposed General Provisions (subpart A)
of 40 CFR part 63. Compliance with the standards will be assessed through
inspections at the plant site and review of records and reports that document
implementation of the requirements.
1. Recordkeeping
Records of leak detection, repair attempts, and maintenance for leaking
equipment would be required by the negotiated standard. These records consist of
the information needed to document compliance with: (1) Work practice standards,
(2) equipment standards, (3) operational standards, (4) emission standards, and (5)
information required for equipment subject to a QIP. These records are also
necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of repair efforts. For equipment subject
to equipment standards, records would be required of the dates of installation,
equipment repair, and equipment modifications. For closed vent systems and control
devices, records would be required of the location and type of equipment, the
design specifications, and the monitoring parameters.
In many respects, the recordkeeping requirements would be similar to those in
the existing standards for equipment leaks. Some differences between the standards
result from the additional provisions of the negotiated standard while others
result from changes made to clarify the requirements. In addition, changes were
made to simplify the recordkeeping requirements and to reduce the associated
burden.
These records must be maintained for a period of 2 years in a readily
accessible recordkeeping system and made available to EPA upon request. This system
may be maintained by physically locating the records at the plant site or by
accessing the records from a central location by computer.
2. Reporting
The negotiated standard would require an initial report and semiannual reports
of LDAR efforts as well as notifications of initiating monthly monitoring or a QIP
for valves or pumps. The initial report is to be submitted for existing process
units, or new process units with startup dates preceding the effective date of the
negotiated rule, within 90 days after the (earliest) applicability date covering
that process unit. The initial report for all other new process units would be
submitted with the application for approval of construction, reconstruction, or
modification as required by the General Provisions. This initial report would
notify the Administrator that the process unit is (or will be) subject to this
Subpart and identify the process unit, number and type of equipment components, and
the method of compliance for each piece of equipment. The planned monitoring
schedule for each type of equipment in each phase would also be required.
The semiannual report is to include information on the numbers of leaking and
nonleaking components; leak frequencies of pumps, valves, and connectors; attempts
to repair; reasons for delay of repair; process unit shutdowns; and changes in the
information submitted in the initial report. The reports shall also include the
results of performance tests conducted within the reporting period for equipment
subject to a 500 ppm performance standard and notifications of initiation of
monthly monitoring or QIP for valves or pumps.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Coordination With Other Clean Air Act Requirements
1. General Provisions
New General Provisions for 40 CFR part 63 standards will be proposed. When
final, they will be published in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. These provisions would
apply to all source categories to be regulated under the NESHAP program after the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Owners and operators of sources subject to the
HON (subparts F through H) should review the General Provisions (subpart A) when
they are proposed and must comply with all applicable requirements. The proposed
subparts F through H specify any portions of the subpart A general provisions which
are not applicable to {pg 62683} HON sources. A brief summary of the types of
information contained in the General Provisions is provided here.
The General Provisions will contain definitions of key terms common to all
NESHAP. Unless a term is defined differently in subparts F through H, the
definitions in subpart A apply.
Provisions regarding prohibited activities and circumvention, as well as
general operation and maintenance requirements that apply to all sources, will also
be included in subpart A.
The General Provisions will contain information on compliance dates. The
compliance dates for new and existing sources proposed in subparts F through H are
applicable to sources covered by the HON and are consistent with the provisions of
subpart A.
The General Provisions will contain information on when and how to conduct
performance tests. Owners or operators who would be required to conduct performance
tests by the proposed subparts F through H must also comply with the applicable
performance test requirements in subpart A. However, as stated in subpart F, owners
and operators do not have to prepare a site-specific test plan describing quality
assurance because the test methods cited in the HON regulations already contain
applicable quality assurance protocols within the methods. The industry is familiar
with these methods and has used them under previous rulemakings, so a site-specific
test plan would not be expected to provide additional assurance of quality data.
Requirements are specified for construction, reconstruction, and modification
of sources. These include procedures for applications for approval prior to
construction, reconstruction, or modification.
Several notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements will be
included in the General Provisions. The dates and contents for various reports will
be specified. The proposed subparts F through H detail how and when these reports
must be submitted for HON sources. As specified in the General Provisions, records
and copies of reports are to be retained for 5 years unless otherwise specified.
Thus, unless specifically noted in the proposed HON, the owner or operator subject
to subparts F through H would be required to comply with notification, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements in subpart A, as well as those in subparts F through
H.
Finally, the General Provisions will contain a listing of materials that have
been incorporated by reference and a section on the availability of information and
confidentiality.
2. Operating Permit Program
Under title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, all HAP-emitting sources
will be required to obtain an operating permit. As discussed in the rule
establishing the operating permit program published on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32251),
this new permit program would include in a single document all of the emission
limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that pertain to a
single source. All applicable requirements of the HON will ultimately be included
in the source's title V operating permit. The permit will contain Federally
enforceable conditions with which the source must comply. Once a State's permit
program has been approved, each chemical manufacturing plant within that State must
apply for and obtain an operating permit. If the State wherein the chemical
manufacturing plant is located does not have an approved permitting program, the
owner or operator must submit the application to the Regional Office. The addresses
for the Regional Offices and States will be included in the proposed General
Provisions referenced in the previous section.
If a source has submitted an Implementation Plan as required in section 151 of
subpart G, prior to the submission of an operating permit application, the
information and limitations in that Implementation Plan must be incorporated into
the operating permit application.
3. Control Techniques Guidelines
Section 183 of title I of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires EPA to
publish 11 CTG's by November 1993. The purpose of CTG's is to provide guidance to
States in developing rules to reduce VOC emissions in ozone non-attainment areas.
Once EPA publishes a CTG, States must adopt rules for sources located in all but
marginal non- attainment areas that are addressed by the CTG.
The EPA is currently developing four CTG's which affect the SOCMI industry.
These four CTG's address reactor process vents, distillation process vents,
volatile organic liquid storage vessels, and wastewater collection and treatment
operations. The EPA has already published CTG's for SOCMI air oxidation process
vents and equipment leaks. The four CTG's being developed will recommend the same
control technology requirements as are contained in today's proposed rule (e.g., 98
percent/20 ppmv for process vents). The only difference between the CTG's and
today's proposed rule is the applicability. There may be process vents, storage
vessels, or wastewater streams in sources covered by today's rule that would not be
subject to the Section 112 standards because they contain no HAP's or because they
do not satisfy the relevant applicability criterion. These same emission points,
however, may contain enough VOC to meet the applicability criteria recommended in
the CTG's. When both the CTG's and the HON are in effect, a plant owner or operator
may need to control more emission points than under either requirement alone. An
owner or operator might be able to control more efficiently if aware of both sets
of requirements during development of control strategies. For example, an owner or
operator might wish to use a larger control device to control all the emission
points addressed by the VOC and HAP rules together. To provide owners and operators
this information for planning purposes, the EPA's intent is to publish the CTG's at
or about the same time the HON is promulgated, if possible.
4. Emissions Trading Policy Statement
On December 4, 1986, the EPA published guidance for sources subject to State
Implementation Plans to control their emissions of VOC's. This guidance, known as
the Emissions Trading Policy Statement (51 FR 43814) established a system by which
sources can trade emissions of VOC's. It includes a prohibition of trades that
increase the volume of toxic chemicals emitted to the atmosphere. The EPA is
currently investigating how the policies in the ETPS are influenced by the
requirements in the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The relationship between the policy
in the ETPS and the emissions averaging provisions in the HON may be further
clarified, either by a separate notice supplementing the ETPS and the HON or in the
final rulemaking for the HON.
5. Section 112(g) Modifications
Section 112(g) of the Act, as amended in 1990, sets out requirements that the
Administrator must follow in developing a policy for approving modifications at
major sources. This section also specifies that modifications to major existing
sources cannot be allowed unless the MACT emissions limitation for the source will
be met. {pg 62684} In addition, no sources can be reconstructed or constructed
unless the MACT emissions limitation for new sources will be met.
The policies established under section 112(g) will influence modifications and
reconstruction at existing SOCMI sources and the construction of new SOCMI sources.
In particular, the policies established under section 112(g) will determine if a
certain change in operations and the resulting structural changes at an existing
source is to be treated as a modification or a reconstruction. If a structural
change is treated as a modification, existing source MACT, as required by the HON,
must be applied, and the emission points associated with the change would be
considered part of the existing source, making them available for emissions
averaging with other emission points in the existing source. If the structural
change is treated as a reconstruction, new source MACT, as required by the HON,
must be applied and the emission points associated with the change would be
considered part of a new source. Emission averaging cannot occur across sources, so
the emission points in the reconstruction could only be averaged with each other,
not with the points in the existing source.
Newly constructed sites, as determined by the upcoming provisions of section
112(g) policies, must be controlled with new source MACT and, like the points in a
reconstructed source, could only be averaged with each other.
B. Executive Order 12291
Under E.O. 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a regulation is ''major''
and therefore subject to the requirement of an RIA. The criteria set forth in
section 1 of the Order for determining whether a regulation is a major rule are as
follows: (1) Is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; (2) is likely to cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State, or local governments;
or (3) is likely to result in significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United
States- based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
The proposed HON is a ''major'' rule and therefore subject to the requirements
of an RIA.
The proposed regulation and RIA were submitted to the OMB for review as
required by E.O. 12291. Any written comments from OMB to EPA and any written EPA
response to those comments will be included in the docket listed at the beginning
of today's notice under ADDRESSES. The docket is available for public inspection at
the EPA's Air Docket Section, which is in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. An Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1414.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy
Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (PM-223Y), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202)
260-2740. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 1,600 hrs per response, and to require 3,200 hrs per
recordkeeper annually. This includes time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: (1)
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223Y, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
''Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA to consider
potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business ''entities.'' If a
preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed regulation would have a significant
economic impact on 20 percent or more of small entities, then a regulatory
flexibility analysis must be prepared.
Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an economic impact
should be considered significant if it meets one of the following criteria: (1)
Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5 percent, assuming costs
are passed on to consumers; (2) compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small
entities are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance represent a
''significant'' portion of capital available to small entities, considering
internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities; or (4) regulatory
requirements are likely to result in closures of small entities.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities.
E. Review
This regulation will be reviewed 9 years from the date of promulgation. This
review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of the residual
health risks, any overlap with other programs, the existence of alternative
methods, enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health
data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: October 29, 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subparts F, G, and H, and
adding and reserving subparts I, J, and K to read as follows:
Subpart F- National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Equipment Leaks from
Seven Other Processes
Sec.
63.100 Applicability and designation of source.
63.101 Definitions.
63.102 General standards.
63.103 General compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions.
63.104 List of organic hazardous air pollutants.
63.105 List of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry chemicals.
63.106 Reserved.
63.107 Reserved.
63.108 Reserved.
63.109 Reserved.
Subpart G-National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater
Secs.
63.110 Applicability.
63.111 Definitions.
63.112 Emission limits.
63.113 Process vent provisions.
63.114 Process vent provisions-monitoring requirements.
63.115 Process vent provisions-methods and procedures for process vent group
determination.
63.116 Process vent provisions-performance test methods and procedures to
determine compliance.
63.117 Process vent provisions-reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
group and TRE determinations and performance tests.
63.118 Process vent provisions-Periodic reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
63.119 Storage vessel provisions-reference control technology.
63.120 Storage vessel provisions-procedures to determine compliance.
63.121 Storage vessel provisions-alternative means of emission limitation.
63.122 Storage vessel provisions-reporting.
63.123 Storage vessel provisions-recordkeeping.
63.124 Reserved.
63.125 Reserved.
63.126 Transfer operations provisions-reference control technology.
63.127 Transfer operations provisions-monitoring requirements.
63.128 Transfer operations provisions-test methods and procedures.
63.129 Transfer operations provisions-reporting and recordkeeping for
performance tests and notification of compliance status.
63.130 Transfer operations provisions-Periodic reporting and recordkeeping.
63.131 Process wastewater provisions-flow diagrams and tables.
63.132 Process wastewater provisions- general.
63.133 Process wastewater provisions-wastewater tanks.
63.134 Process wastewater provisions-surface impoundments.
63.135 Process wastewater provisions- containers.
63.136 Process wastewater provisions-individual drain systems.
63.137 Process wastewater provisions-oil-water separators.
63.138 Process wastewater provisions-treatment processes.
63.139 Process wastewater provisions-closed-vent systems and control devices.
63.140 Process wastewater provisions-delay of repair.
63.141 Reserved.
63.142 Reserved.
63.143 Process wastewater provisions-inspections and monitoring of operations.
63.144 Process wastewater provisions-test methods and procedures to determine
applicability.
63.145 Process wastewater provisions-test methods and procedures to determine
compliance.
63.146 Process wastewater provisions-reporting.
63.147 Process wastewater provisions-recordkeeping.
63.148 Reserved.
63.149 Reserved.
63.150 Emissions averaging provisions.
63.151 Initial Notification and Implementation Plan.
63.152 General reporting.
Subpart H-National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Equipment Leaks
Secs.
63.160 Applicability and designation of sources.
63.161 Definitions.
63.162 Standards: General.
63.163 Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.
63.164 Standards: Compressors.
63.165 Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.
63.166 Standards: Sampling connection systems.
63.167 Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.
63.168 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
63.169 Standards: Pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid
service; instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid service.
63.170 Standards: Product accumulator vessels.
63.171 Standards: Delay of repair.
63.172 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.
63.173 Standards: Agitators in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
63.174 Standards: Connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
63.175 Quality improvement program for valves.
63.176 Quality improvement program for pumps.
63.177 Alternative means of emission limitation: General.
63.178 Alternative means of emission limitation: Batch processes.
63.179 Alternative means of emission limitation: Enclosed-vented process units.
63.180 Test methods and procedures.
63.181 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.182 Reporting requirements.
63.183 List of volatile hazardous air pollutants.
63.184 List of hazardous organic chemicals production processes.
63.185 Reserved.
63.186 Reserved.
63.187 Reserved.
63.188 Reserved.
63.189 Reserved.
Subpart I- Reserved
Subpart J- Reserved
Subpart K- Reserved
SUBPART F- National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Equipment Leaks From
Seven Other Processes
Sec. 63.100 Applicability and designation of source.
(a) This subpart provides applicability provisions, definitions, and other
general provisions that are applicable to subparts G and H.
(b) Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section,
(1) The provisions of subparts F, G, and H apply as follows:
(i) The provisions of subparts F and G apply to chemical manufacturing
processes that manufacture as a product one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec.
63.105 of this subpart, and are also located at a plant site that is a major source
as defined in section 112(b) of the Act.
(ii) The provisions of subparts F and H apply to chemical manufacturing
processes that manufacture as a product one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec.
63.184 of subpart H, and are also located at a plant site that is a major source as
defined in section 112(b) of the Act.
(iii) For chemical manufacturing processes that are designed and operated as
either batch operations, or as flexible operation units, the provisions of subparts
F, G, and H shall apply as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) and
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) Subparts F and G apply only during time periods when the process is
manufacturing as a product one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 of
this subpart and the process is located at a plant site that is a major source.
(B) Subparts F and H apply only during time periods when the process is
manufacturing as a product one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.184 of
subpart H of this part and when the process is located at a plant site that is a
major source.
(2) The provisions of subparts F and H also apply to emissions of designated
volatile hazardous air pollutants from the manufacturing processes specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(vii) of this section. The specified
manufacturing processes are further defined in Sec. 63.160 and Sec. 63.161 of
subpart H.
(i) Styrene-butadiene rubber production (butadiene and styrene emissions only).
(ii) Polybutadiene production (butadiene emissions only).
(iii) Chlorine production (carbon tetrachloride emissions only).
(iv) Pesticide production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, and
ethylene dichloride emissions only).
(v) Chlorinated hydrocarbon use (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, chloroform, and ethylene dichloride emissions only).
(vi) Pharmaceutical production (carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride
emissions only).
(vii) Miscellaneous butadiene use (butadiene emissions only).
(3) The source to which this subpart applies is the collection of the process
vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater and the associated treatment
residuals, and equipment leaks that are associated with the chemical manufacturing
processes specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and are located at the
same plant site. This subpart applies only to emission points that are part of
major sources.
(i) If a chemical manufacturing process produces more than one intended
chemical product, the product with the greatest annual design capacity on a mass
basis determines the product of the process.
(ii) If a chemical manufacturing process has two or more products that have the
same maximum annual design capacity on a mass basis and if one of those chemicals
is listed in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or Sec. 63.184 of subpart H, then the
listed chemical is considered the intended product and the chemical manufacturing
process is subject to this subpart. If more than one of the products is listed in
Sec. 63.105 or Sec. 63.184, then the owner or operator may designate as the
intended product any of the listed chemicals and the chemical manufacturing process
is subject to this subpart.
(iii) If one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart is
produced by a unit operation that is an integral part of a chemical manufacturing
process that does not produce one of the chemicals in Sec. 63.105 as its intended
product, then the unit operation is not subject to this subpart. For example, if a
distillation column is used to produce purified methyl methacrylate by removing an
inhibitor, but the distillation column is part of the process to manufacture methyl
methacrylate acrylonitrilebutadiene-styrene (MABS) resins, then the distillation
column is considered part of the resins process and is not subject to this subpart.
(A) A unit operation is one or more pieces of process equipment used to make a
single change to the physical or chemical characteristics of one or more process
streams. Unit operations include reactors, distillation columns, extraction
columns, decanters, compressors, condensers, boilers, and filtration equipment.
(B) For a unit operation to be an integral part of a chemical manufacturing
process, at least 90 percent of the product stream from the unit operation must be
used by the chemical manufacturing process.
(iv) The owner or operator shall determine the applicability of subparts F and
G to storage vessels and transfer racks according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section.
(v) The source does not include process vents that are associated with unit
process operations that are designed and operated as batch operations.
(vi) The source does not include:
(A) Stormwater from segregated stormwater sewers;
(B) Spills; and
(C) Water from safety showers.
(vii) The source does not include those process vents, transfer racks, storage
vessels, and wastewater streams that are not associated with the manufacture of
chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 or do not contact or emit any of the chemicals
listed in Sec. 63.104, or are not associated with the handling of wastes generated
by these chemical manufacturing processes.
(viii) The source does not include equipment leaks that are not associated with
the manufacture of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.184 of subpart H, or do not
contact or emit any of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183 of subpart H.
(ix) For the purposes of subparts F and H, the source includes equipment leaks
of the designated volatile hazardous air pollutants from the manufacturing
processes identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but does not include
process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, or wastewater streams from the
manufacturing processes listed in paragraph (b)(2).
(4) Where a storage vessel is used exclusively by a chemical manufacturing
process, the storage vessel shall be considered part of the equipment for that
specific chemical manufacturing process. If a storage vessel is not dedicated to a
single chemical manufacturing process, then the applicability of subparts F and G
shall be determined according to the provisions in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(b)(4)(iv) of this section.
(i) If a storage vessel is shared among processes and one of the processes has
the predominant use of the storage vessel, as described in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(A)
and (b)(4)(i)(B) of this section, then the storage vessel is part of that chemical
manufacturing process.
(A) If the greatest input into the storage vessel is from a chemical
manufacturing process located on the same plant site, then that chemical
manufacturing process has the predominant use.
(B) If the greatest input into the storage vessel is provided from a process
that is not located on the same plant site, then the predominant use is the process
that receives the greatest amount of material from the storage vessel.
(ii) If a storage vessel is shared among chemical manufacturing processes so
that there is no single predominant use, as described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of
this section, and at least one of those chemical manufacturing processes is subject
to this subpart, the storage vessel shall be considered to be part of the chemical
manufacturing process that is subject to this subpart. If more than one chemical
manufacturing process is subject to this subpart, the owner or operator may assign
the storage vessel to any of the chemical manufacturing processes subject to this
subpart.
(iii) If predominant use of a storage vessel varies from year to year, then the
applicability of this subpart shall be determined based on the utilization that
occurred during the year preceding promulgation of this subpart. This determination
shall be included in the Implementation Plan required by Sec. 63.151 (c), (d), and
(e) of subpart G or as part of an operating permit application.
(iv) If there is a change in the material stored in the storage vessel, the
owner or operator shall reevaluate the applicability of this subpart to the vessel.
(5) Where a transfer rack is used exclusively by a chemical manufacturing
process, the transfer rack shall be considered part of the equipment for that
specific chemical manufacturing process. If a transfer rack is shared among several
chemical manufacturing processes, then the applicability of subparts F and G shall
be determined according to the provisions in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through
(b)(5)(vi) of this section.
(i) Where a transfer rack is not dedicated to a single chemical manufacturing
process, the applicability of this subpart shall be determined at {pg 62687} each
loading arm or loading hose, as described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) through
(b)(5)(vi) of this section.
(ii) Each loading arm or loading hose that is dedicated to the transfer of
liquid organic hazardous air pollutants from a chemical manufacturing process to
which this subpart applies is part of that chemical manufacturing process and is
subject to this subpart.
(iii) If a loading arm or loading hose is shared among processes, and one of
the processes provides the greatest amount of the material that is loaded by the
loading arm or loading hose, then the loading arm or loading hose is part of that
process.
(iv) If a loading arm or loading hose is shared among processes so that there
is no single predominant use as described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section
and at least one of those chemical manufacturing processes is subject to this
subpart, then the loading arm or hose is part of the chemical manufacturing process
that is subject to this subpart. If more than one chemical manufacturing process is
subject to this subpart, the owner or operator may assign the loading arm or
loading hose or transfer rack to any of the chemical manufacturing processes
subject to this subpart.
(v) If the predominant use of a loading arm or hose varies from year to year,
then the applicability of this Subpart shall be determined based on the utilization
that occurred during the year preceding promulgation of this subpart. This
determination shall be included in the Implementation Plan required by Sec.
63.151(c), (d), and (e) of subpart G or as part an operating permit application.
(vi) If there is a change in the material loaded at the loading arm or loading
hose, the owner or operator shall reevaluate the applicability of this subpart to
the loading arm or loading hose.
(c) The emission points regulated under subparts G and H of this part, and
additional applicability criteria specific to each subpart are specified under
those subparts.
(1) Subpart G pertains to emissions from process vents, storage vessels,
transfer racks, and process wastewater streams and associated treatment residuals.
Applicability provisions are contained in Sec. 63.110 of subpart G.
(2) Subpart H pertains to emissions from equipment leaks. Applicability
provisions are contained in Sec. 63.160 of subpart H.
(3) The equipment leaks standards in subpart H of this part shall not apply to
a product accumulator vessel if the vent from the product accumulator vessel is in
compliance with the provisions for process vents in subpart G of this part.
(d) Any chemical manufacturing process that produces as a product any of the
chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or in Sec. 63.184 of subpart H, but
does not use as a reactant or manufacture as a product, by-product, or co-product,
one or more of the organic hazardous air pollutants listed in Sec. 63.104 of this
subpart or the volatile hazardous air pollutants listed in Sec. 63.183 of subpart H
is exempt from all provisions of subparts F, G, and H except the recordkeeping
requirement in Sec. 63.103(e) of this subpart.
(e) The provisions of subparts F, G, and H of this part do not apply to the
processes specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section.
(1) Research and development facilities, regardless of whether the facilities
are located at the same plant site as a chemical manufacturing process that is
subject to the provisions of subparts F, G, or H.
(2) Petroleum refining processes, regardless of whether the unit supplies
feedstocks that include chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or Sec.
63.184 of subpart H to chemical manufacturing processes that are subject to the
provisions of subparts F, G, or H.
(3) Ethylene processes, regardless of whether the unit supplies feedstocks that
include chemicals listed in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or Sec. 63.184 of subpart H
to chemical manufacturing processes that are subject to the provisions of subparts
F, G, or H of this part.
(4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air pollutants that is
located within a chemical manufacturing process that is subject to this subpart.
(5) Chemical manufacturing processes that are located in coke by-product
recovery plants.
(f) Sources subject to subparts F, G, or H are required to achieve compliance
on or before the dates specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this
section.
(1) New sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 31.
1992 shall be in compliance with subparts F through G upon startup or the date of
promulgation of this subpart, whichever is later, as provided in Sec. 63.6(b) of
subpart A of this part. fn 1
fn 1 The EPA will propose subpart A in a future document.
(2) Existing sources shall be in compliance with subparts F and G no later than
3 years after the effective date of this subpart, as provided in Sec. 63.6(c) of
subpart A of this part, fn 2 unless an extension has been granted by the
Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.151 of subpart G or granted by the operating
permit authority as provided in Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A of this part. fn 3
fn 2 See Footnote 1.
fn 3 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(3) New and existing sources shall be in compliance with subpart H no later
than the dates specified in subpart H.
(4) If a change is made to a chemical manufacturing process subject to subparts
F and G, and the change is not subject to the provisions established under section
112(g) of the Act, and the change causes a Group 2 emission point to become a Group
1 emission point (as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G), then the owner or
operator shall be in compliance with the subpart G requirements for the Group 1
emission point no later than 150 days after the process change is made. If such a
change is made prior to the compliance dates specified in paragraphs (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this section, then the owner or operator shall be in compliance with the
subpart G requirements for the Group 1 emission point by either the applicable
compliance date in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) or within 150 days after the process
change, whichever is later.
(g) If any change is made to a chemical manufacturing process within a source
(including but not limited to the alteration, upgrade, rebuild, or replacement of
equipment used in the chemical manufacturing process), or if any additional
emission point or chemical manufacturing process is added, the owner or operator
shall determine whether the source is a new, existing, or modified source according
to criteria established under section 112(g) of the Act.
Sec. 63.101 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart and subparts G and H shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in subpart A of this part, fn 4 and in this section as
follows:
fn 4 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation in which a discrete quantity or
batch of feed is charged into a process unit and distilled or reacted at one time.
By-product means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during the
production of another chemical.
Chemical manufacturing process means the equipment assembled and connected by
pipes or ducts to manufacture as a product one or more chemicals. For the purpose
of this subpart, chemical manufacturing {pg 62688} process includes all the
equipment associated with the unit operations including air oxidation, reactor, and
distillation units, and any feed, intermediate and product storage vessels, and
transfer racks assigned to the process according to the provisions of Sec.
63.100(b)(4) and Sec. 63.100(b)(5) of this subpart. A chemical manufacturing
process is identified by its product.
Co-product means a chemical that is produced during the production of another
chemical.
Emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel, transfer rack,
wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Equipment leak means emissions of volatile hazardous air pollutants from a
pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system,
open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, product accumulator vessel, and
instrumentation system in volatile hazardous air pollutant service as defined in
Sec. 63.161 of subpart H, and any control devices or systems required by subpart H.
Ethylene process means a chemical manufacturing process in which ethylene
and/or propylene are produced by separation from petroleum refining process streams
or by subjecting hydrocarbons to high temperatures in the presence of steam and
then separating and purifying these chemicals. The ethylene process includes all
equipment used in the pretreatment of the raw materials and other associated
streams, including streams containing one or more chemicals listed in Sec. 63.104
or Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or in Sec. 63.183 or Sec. 63.184 of subpart H which
are subsequently extracted and purified in another chemical manufacturing process.
Flexible operation unit means a chemical manufacturing process that
manufactures different chemical products periodically by alternating raw materials.
These units are also referred to as campaign plants.
Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through cooling
water system (river or pond water).
Impurity means a substance that is produced coincidentally with another
chemical substance and is processed, used, or distributed with it.
Organic hazardous air pollutant or organic HAP means one of the chemicals
listed in Sec. 63.104 of this subpart.
Petroleum refining process, also referred to as a petroleum refining process
unit, means a process that for the purpose of producing transportation fuels (such
as gasoline and diesel fuels), heating oils (such as distillate and residual fuel
oils), or lubricants; separates petroleum; or separates, cracks, or reforms
unfinished derivatives. Examples of such units include, but are not limited to,
alkylation units, catalytic hydrotreating, catalytic hydrorefining, catalytic
hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, catalytic cracking, crude distillation, and
thermal processes.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common
ownership or control, including properties that are separated only by a road or
other public right-of-way. Common ownership or control includes properties that are
owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any
combination thereof.
Process vent means a gas stream containing greater than 0.005 weight percent
organic hazardous air pollutant that is continuously discharged during operation of
the unit from an air oxidation process, reactor process, or distillation operation
within a chemical manufacturing process that meets all applicability criteria in
Sec. 63.100 of this subpart. Process vents include gas streams that are either
discharged directly to the atmosphere or discharged to the atmosphere after
diversion through a product recovery device. Process vents exclude relief valve
discharges and leaks from equipment regulated under subpart H of this part, but
include vents from product accumulator vessels.
Product means a compound or chemical which is manufactured as the intended
product of the chemical manufacturing process. If a chemical manufacturing process
produces more than one intended chemical product, the product with the greatest
annual design capacity on a mass basis determines the product of the process. If a
chemical manufacturing process has two or more products that have the same maximum
annual design capacity on a mass basis and if only one of these chemicals is listed
in Sec. 63.105 of this subpart or Sec. 63.184 of subpart H, then the listed
chemical is considered to be the intended product. If more than one chemical is
listed, then the owner or operator may designate as the intended product any of the
listed chemicals.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of and used for
the purpose of recovering chemicals for use, reuse, or sale. Recovery devices
include, but are not limited to, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers.
Research and development facility means laboratory and pilot plant operations
whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new processes and
products, where the operations are under the close supervision of technically
trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial
sale, except in a de minimis manner.
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan means the plan required under Sec.
63.6(e) of Subpart A. fn 5 This plan details the procedures for operation and
maintenance of the source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
fn 5 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel used to store organic liquids that
are on the list of chemicals in Sec. 63.104 of this Subpart and that is part of the
equipment in a chemical manufacturing process that meets the applicability criteria
in Sec. 63.100 of this subpart. Storage vessel does not include:
(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 with capacities smaller than 38 cubic meters; or
(4) Vessels storing liquids that contain organic hazardous air pollutants only
as impurities.
Transfer operation means the loading of one or more liquid organic hazardous
air pollutants at an operating pressure less than or equal to 204.9 kilopascals
from a transfer rack within a chemical manufacturing process to which this Subpart
applies into a tank truck or railcar.
Transfer rack means the loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief
valves, and other piping and valves necessary to fill tank trucks or railcars.
Transfer racks do not include racks transferring liquids that contain organic
hazardous air pollutants only as impurities.
Volatile hazardous air pollutant or VHAP, as used in this subpart and subpart H
means a substance listed in Sec. 63.183 of subpart H.
Wastewater means organic hazardous air pollutant-containing water or process
fluid discharged into an individual drain system and includes process wastewater,
maintenance-turnaround wastewater, and maintenance wastewater.
(1) Organic hazardous air pollutant-containing water or process fluids contain
at least 5 parts per million by weight total organic hazardous air pollutant and
have a flow rate of 0.02 {pg 62689} liter per minute, or greater, or a
concentration of at least 10,000 parts per million by weight and any flow rate.
Process fluid means any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-
product, or waste product.
(2) Process wastewater is water or wastewater which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the production or use of
process fluids. Examples are product or feedtank drawdown; water formed during the
chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic
products or reactants; water used to cool or quench organic vapor streams through
direct contact; and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on
vessels containing organics.
(3) Maintenance wastewater is wastewater generated by the draining of process
fluid from components in the process unit into an individual drain system for
maintenance performed during periods that are not process unit shutdowns.
(4) Maintenance-turnaround wastewater is wastewater created during a process
unit shutdown or by maintenance activities during the period of the unit shutdown.
Examples of activities that would generate such wastewaters are descaling of heat
exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, draining of low
legs or high point bleeds, and draining of pumps into an individual drain system.
Sec. 63.102 General standards.
(a) Owners and operators of sources subject to this Subpart shall comply with
the requirements of Subparts G and H of this Part.
(b) Owners and operators of sources subject to Subpart G shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to this Subpart shall prepare a description
of and implement the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of
this section as part of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required under
Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A of this part. fn 6 The procedures shall be updated as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
fn 6 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(i) A description of maintenance turnaround procedures for management of
wastewaters generated from the emptying and purging of equipment in the process
during temporary shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair (i.e., a
maintenance turnaround). The description shall:
(A) Specify the process equipment or maintenance tasks that are anticipated to
create HAP-containing wastewaters during a maintenance turnaround;
(B) Specify the procedures that will be followed to properly manage and control
organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere; and
(C) Specify the procedures to be followed when clearing process fluid during a
process unit shutdown.
(ii) A description of maintenance and housekeeping procedures used to ensure
proper management of wastewaters generated by emptying and purging of equipment
during periods not associated with a process unit shutdown. The procedures shall
ensure that routine maintenance wastewaters are either collected and recycled or
are destroyed or are collected and managed in a controlled drain system.
(iii) The owner or operator shall modify and update the maintenance turnaround
procedures as needed following each maintenance turnaround based on the actions
taken and the wastewaters generated in the preceding maintenance turnaround.
(iv) The owner or operator shall modify and update the housekeeping procedures
for wastewaters generated during routine maintenance activities, as needed.
(2) For each heat exchange system that cools process equipment that is part of
a chemical manufacturing process that is subject to the provisions of this subpart,
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (b)(2)(v) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section.
(i) The cooling water shall be monitored monthly for the first 6 months and
quarterly thereafter to detect leaks. Only HAP's that are present in the process
fluid in concentrations greater than 5 percent by weight are required to be
measured in the cooling water.
(ii) The samples shall be taken at the entrance and exit of each heat exchange
system, except for process equipment that is piped in parallel with other
equipment. For this case, samples may be taken of the total stream.
(iii) A minimum of three sets of samples shall be taken of the cooling water at
the entrance and exit of the system, for a total of six samples. The concentration
of total HAP in the cooling water shall be determined using an EPA- approved
method. The average inlet and outlet concentrations shall then be calculated.
(iv) A leak is detected if either of the following two conditions is observed:
(A) A statistically significant increase of at least 1 part per million at the
95 percent confidence level, or
(B) A statistically significant increase of 1 percent at the 95 percent
confidence level.
(v) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
(3) Delay of repair of heat exchange systems for which leaks have been detected
is allowed if either of the conditions in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of
this section are met.
(i) If the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown.
Repair of this equipment shall occur before the end of the next process unit
shutdown.
(ii) If the equipment is isolated from the process and does not remain in HAP
service.
(4) Each heat exchange system that is operated with the minimum pressure on the
cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the
process side is exempt from the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(c) If, in the judgment of the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, an alternative means of emission limitation will achieve a
reduction in organic HAP emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in organic
HAP emissions from that source achieved under any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standards in subparts G or H, the Director will publish in the
Federal Register a notice permitting the use of the alternative means for purposes
of compliance with that requirement.
(1) The notice may condition the permission on requirements related to the
operation and maintenance of the alternative means.
(2) Any notice under paragraph (c) of this section shall be published only
after public notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
(3) Any person seeking permission to use an alternative means of compliance
under this section shall collect, verify, and submit to the Administrator
information showing that the alternative means achieves equivalent emission
reductions.
(d) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall obtain a
part 70 or part 71 permit from the appropriate permitting authority.
(1) If EPA has approved a State operating permit program under part 71, {pg
62690} the permit shall be obtained from the State authority. If the State
operating permit program has not been approved, the source shall apply to the EPA
regional office pursuant to part 70.
(2) If an operating permit application has not been submitted by the dates
specified in Sec. 63.151(c) of subpart G of this part, the owner or operator shall
submit an Implementation Plan as specified in Sec. 63.151 (c), (d), and (e) of
subpart G.
(e) The requirements in subparts F, G, and H are federally enforceable under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act on and after the dates specified in Sec. 63.100(f)
of this subpart.
Sec. 63.103 General compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions.
(a) All provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 of subpart A of this part fn 7
apply to owners and operators of sources subject to subparts F through H of this
part, except:
fn 7 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(1) The provisions of Sec. 63.6(f)(4) of subpart A; fn 8
fn 8 See Footnote 7.
(2) The performance test notification and quality assurance plan provisions of
Sec. 63.7 (b) and (c) of subpart A; fn 9
fn 9 See Footnote 7.
(3) The continuous monitoring system provisions of Sec. 63.8(c)(4), (c)(6),
(d), (e), and (g) of subpart A; fn 10
fn 10 See Footnote 7.
(4) The notification provisions of Sec. 63.9(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6), (e), and
(g) of subpart A; fn 11
fn 11 See Footnote 7.
(5) The recordkeeping and reporting provisions of Sec. 63.10(b)(1),
(b)(2)(vii), (c), and (e) of subpart A. fn 12
fn 12 See Footnote 7.
(b) Initial performance tests shall be required only as specified in subparts G
and H of this part.
(1) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the schedule and
procedures in Sec. 63.7(a) of subpart A of this part fn 13 and the applicable
sections of subparts G and H.
fn 13 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(2) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of the intention to
conduct a performance test at least 30 days before the performance test is
scheduled to allow the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present
during the test.
(3) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the provisions of Sec.
63.7(e), fn 14 except that performance tests shall be conducted at maximum
representative operating conditions for the process. During the performance test,
an owner or operator may operate the control or recovery device at maximum or
minimum representative operating conditions as appropriate for the type of control
or recovery device.
fn 14 See Footnote 13.
(4) Data shall be reduced in accordance with the EPA- approved methods
specified in the applicable subpart or, if other test methods are used, the data
and methods shall be validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix
A of this part.
(c) Each owner or operator of a source subject to subparts F, G, and H shall
keep copies of all applicable reports and records required by subparts F, G, and H
for at least 5 years, except as otherwise specified in subparts G or H. All
applicable records shall be maintained in such a manner that they can be readily
accessed. This could include hard copy or computer records maintained on-site at
the source or accessing the records from a central location by computer.
(d) All reports required under subparts F through H shall be sent to the
Administrator at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A of this part, fn
15 except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
fn 15 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(1) Requests for permission to use an alternative means of compliance as
provided for in Sec. 63.102(c) of this subpart and application for approval of a
nominal efficiency as provided for in Sec. 63.150(h)(1) and Sec. 63.150(h)(6) of
subpart G shall be submitted to the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards rather than to a State permitting authority.
(2) If the same emission point is subject to the provisions of subparts G or H
and also to another applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, the owner or
operator shall meet the most stringent standards applicable to the emission point.
The records kept and reports submitted under the most stringent standard shall be
sufficient to verify compliance with all applicable subparts. Duplicative
recordkeeping and reporting of the same information under multiple subparts shall
not be required.
(e) Information, data, and analyses used to determine that a chemical
manufacturing process does not use as a reactant or manufacture as a product any
organic hazardous air pollutant or volatile hazardous air pollutant shall be
recorded. Examples of information that could document this include, but are not
limited to, records of chemicals purchased for the process, analyses of process
stream composition, engineering calculations, or process knowledge.
Sec. 63.104 List of organic hazardous air pollutants.
Table 1 provides the list of organic hazardous air pollutants regulated under
this subpart and subpart G.
Table 1.- Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
Chemical name sup a, b Acetaldehyde
CAS No. sup c 75070
Chemical name sup a, b Acetamide
CAS No. sup c 60355
Chemical name sup a, b Acetonitrile
CAS No. sup c 75058
Chemical name sup a, b Acetophenone
CAS No. sup c 98862
Chemical name sup a, b Acrolein
CAS No. sup c 107028
Chemical name sup a, b Acrylamide
CAS No. sup c 79061
Chemical name sup a, b Acrylic acid
CAS No. sup c 79107
Chemical name sup a, b Acrylonitrile
CAS No. sup c 107131
Chemical name sup a, b Allyl chloride
CAS No. sup c 107051
Chemical name sup a, b Aniline
CAS No. sup c 62533
Chemical name sup a, b o-Anisidine
CAS No. sup c 90040
Chemical name sup a, b Benzene
CAS No. sup c 71432
Chemical name sup a, b Benzotrichloride
CAS No. sup c 98077
Chemical name sup a, b Benzyl chloride
CAS No. sup c 100447
Chemical name sup a, b Biphenyl
CAS No. sup c 92524
Chemical name sup a, b Bis(chloromethyl)ether
CAS No. sup c 542881
Chemical name sup a, b Bromoform
CAS No. sup c 75252
Chemical name sup a, b 1,3-Butadiene
CAS No. sup c 106990
Chemical name sup a, b Caprolactam
CAS No. sup c 105602
Chemical name sup a, b Carbon disulfide
CAS No. sup c 75150
Chemical name sup a, b Carbon tetrachloride
CAS No. sup c 56235
Chemical name sup a, b Chloroacetic acid
CAS No. sup c 79118
Chemical name sup a, b 2-Chloroacetophenone
CAS No. sup c 532274
Chemical name sup a, b Chlorobenzene
CAS No. sup c 108907
Chemical name sup a, b Chloroform
CAS No. sup c 67663
Chemical name sup a, b Chloroprene
CAS No. sup c 126998
Chemical name sup a, b Cresols and cresylic acids (mixed)
CAS No. sup c 1319773
Chemical name sup a, b o-Cresol and o-cresylic acid
CAS No. sup c 95487
Chemical name sup a, b m-Cresol and m-cresylic acid
CAS No. sup c 108394
Chemical name sup a, b p-Cresol and p-cresylic acid
CAS No. sup c 106445
Chemical name sup a, b Cumene
CAS No. sup c 98828
Chemical name sup a, b 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p-)
CAS No. sup c 106467
Chemical name sup a, b 3,3 minutes -Dichlorobenzidine
CAS No. sup c 91941
Chemical name sup a, b Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether)
CAS No. sup c 111444
Chemical name sup a, b 1,3-Dichloropropene
CAS No. sup c 542756
Chemical name sup a, b Diethanolamine
CAS No. sup c 111422
Chemical name sup a, b N,N-Dimethylaniline
CAS No. sup c 121697
Chemical name sup a, b Diethyl sulfate
CAS No. sup c 64675
Chemical name sup a, b 3,3 minutes -Dimethylbenzidine
CAS No. sup c 119937
Chemical name sup a, b Dimethylformamide
CAS No. sup c 68122
Chemical name sup a, b 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
CAS No. sup c 57147
Chemical name sup a, b Dimethyl phthalate
CAS No. sup c 131113
Chemical name sup a, b Dimethyl sulfate
CAS No. sup c 77781
Chemical name sup a, b 2,4-Dinitrophenol
CAS No. sup c 51285
Chemical name sup a, b 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
CAS No. sup c 121142
Chemical name sup a, b 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
CAS No. sup c 123911
Chemical name sup a, b 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
CAS No. sup c 122667
Chemical name sup a, b Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-
epoxypropane)
CAS No. sup c 106898
Chemical name sup a, b Ethyl acrylate
CAS No. sup c 140885
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylbenzene
CAS No. sup c 100414
Chemical name sup a, b Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
CAS No. sup c 75003
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
CAS No. sup c 106934
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylene dichloride (1,2-
Dichloroethane)
CAS No. sup c 107062
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylene glycol
CAS No. sup c 107211
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylene oxide
CAS No. sup c 75218
Chemical name sup a, b Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-
Dichloroethane)
CAS No. sup c 75343
Chemical name sup a, b Formaldehyde
CAS No. sup c 50000
Chemical name sup a, b Glycol ethers sup d
CAS No. sup c
Chemical name sup a, b Hexachlorobenzene
CAS No. sup c 118741
Chemical name sup a, b Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS No. sup c 87683
Chemical name sup a, b Hexachloroethane
CAS No. sup c 67721
Chemical name sup a, b Hexane
CAS No. sup c 100543
Chemical name sup a, b Hydroquinone
CAS No. sup c 123319
Chemical name sup a, b Isophorone
CAS No. sup c 78591
Chemical name sup a, b Maleic anhydride
CAS No. sup c 108316
Chemical name sup a, b Methanol
CAS No. sup c 67561
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
CAS No. sup c 74839
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
CAS No. sup c 74873
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-
Trichloroethane)
CAS No. sup c 71556
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
CAS No. sup c 78933
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl hydrazine
CAS No. sup c 60344
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
CAS No. sup c 108101
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl isocyanate
CAS No. sup c 624839
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl methacrylate
CAS No. sup c 80626
Chemical name sup a, b Methyl tert-butyl ether
CAS No. sup c 1634044
Chemical name sup a, b Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
CAS No. sup c 75092
Chemical name sup a, b Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
CAS No. sup c 101688
Chemical name sup a, b 4,4 minutes -Methylenedianiline
CAS No. sup c 101779
Chemical name sup a, b Naphthalene
CAS No. sup c 91203
Chemical name sup a, b Nitrobenzene
CAS No. sup c 98953
Chemical name sup a, b 4-Nitrophenol
CAS No. sup c 100027
Chemical name sup a, b 2-Nitropropane
CAS No. sup c 79469
Chemical name sup a, b Phenol
CAS No. sup c 108952
Chemical name sup a, b p-Phenylenediamine
CAS No. sup c 106503
Chemical name sup a, b Phosgene
CAS No. sup c 75445
Chemical name sup a, b Phthalic anhydride
CAS No. sup c 85449
Chemical name sup a, b Polycyclic organic matter sup e
CAS No. sup c
Chemical name sup a, b Propiolactone (beta-isomer)
CAS No. sup c 57578
Chemical name sup a, b Propionaldehyde
CAS No. sup c 123386
Chemical name sup a, b Propylene dichloride (1,2-
Dichloropropane)
CAS No. sup c 78875
Chemical name sup a, b Propylene oxide
CAS No. sup c 75569
Chemical name sup a, b Quinone
CAS No. sup c 106514
Chemical name sup a, b Styrene
CAS No. sup c 100425
Chemical name sup a, b 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
CAS No. sup c 79345
Chemical name sup a, b Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene)
CAS No. sup c 127184
Chemical name sup a, b Toluene
CAS No. sup c 108883
Chemical name sup a, b 2,4-Toluene diamine
CAS No. sup c 95807
Chemical name sup a, b 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
CAS No. sup c 584849
Chemical name sup a, b o-Toluidine
CAS No. sup c 95534
Chemical name sup a, b 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
CAS No. sup c 120821
Chemical name sup a, b 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
CAS No. sup c 79005
Chemical name sup a, b Trichloroethylene
CAS No. sup c 79016
Chemical name sup a, b 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
CAS No. sup c 95954
Chemical name sup a, b Triethylamine
CAS No. sup c 121448
Chemical name sup a, b 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
CAS No. sup c 540841
Chemical name sup a, b Vinyl acetate
CAS No. sup c 108054
Chemical name sup a, b Vinyl chloride
CAS No. sup c 75014
Chemical name sup a, b Vinylidene chloride (1,1-
Dichloroethylene)
CAS No. sup c 75354
Chemical name sup a, b Xylenes (isomers and mixtures)
CAS No. sup c 1330207
Chemical name sup a, b o-Xylene
CAS No. sup c 95476
Chemical name sup a, b m-Xylene
CAS No. sup c 108383
Chemical name sup a, b p-Xylene
CAS No. sup c 106423
sup a For all listings above containing the word "Compounds" and
for glycol ethers, the following applies: Unless otherwise
specified, these listings are defined as including any unique
chemical substance that contains the named chemical (i.e.,
antimony, arsenic) as part of that chemical's infrastructure.
sup b Isomer means all structural arrangements for the same
number of atoms of each element and does not mean salts, esters,
or derivatives.
sup c CAS Number Chemical Abstract Service number.
sup d Includes mono- and di-ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene
glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH sub 2CH sub 2) sub n-OR
minutes where n 1, 2, or 3; R alkyl or aryl groups; and R
minutes R, H, or groups which, when removed, yield glycol ethers
with the structure: R-(OCH sub 2CH sub 2) sub n-OH Polymers are
excluded from the glycol category.
sup e Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring,
and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100
degrees C.
Sec. 63.105 List of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry chemicals.
Table 2 provides the list of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
chemicals. Chemical manufacturing processes producing these chemicals as products
are subject to this subpart and to subpart G as provided in Sec. 63.100 of this
subpart.
Table 2.- Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Chemicals
Chemicals name sup a Acenaphthene
CAS No. sup b 83329
Chemicals name sup a Acetal
CAS No. sup b 105577
Chemicals name sup a Acetaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 75070
Chemicals name sup a Acetaldol
CAS No. sup b 107891
Chemicals name sup a Acetamide
CAS No. sup b 60355
Chemicals name sup a Acetanilide
CAS No. sup b 103844
Chemicals name sup a Acetic acid
CAS No. sup b 64197
Chemicals name sup a Acetic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 108247
Chemicals name sup a Acetoacetanilide
CAS No. sup b 102012
Chemicals name sup a Acetone
CAS No. sup b 67641
Chemicals name sup a Acetone cyanohydrin
CAS No. sup b 75865
Chemicals name sup a Acetonitrile
CAS No. sup b 75058
Chemicals name sup a Acetophenone
CAS No. sup b 98862
Chemicals name sup a Acrolein
CAS No. sup b 107028
Chemicals name sup a Acrylamide
CAS No. sup b 79061
Chemicals name sup a Acrylic acid
CAS No. sup b 79107
Chemicals name sup a Acrylonitrile
CAS No. sup b 107131
Chemicals name sup a Adiponitrile
CAS No. sup b 111693
Chemicals name sup a Alizarin
CAS No. sup b 72480
Chemicals name sup a Alkyl anthraquinones
CAS No. sup b 008
Chemicals name sup a Allyl alcohol
CAS No. sup b 107186
Chemicals name sup a Allyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 107051
Chemicals name sup a Allyl cyanide
CAS No. sup b 109751
Chemicals name sup a Aminophenol sulfonic acid
CAS No. sup b 0010
Chemicals name sup a Aminophenol (p-)
CAS No. sup b 123308
Chemicals name sup a Aniline
CAS No. sup b 62533
Chemicals name sup a Aniline hydrochloride
CAS No. sup b 142041
Chemicals name sup a Anisidine (o-)
CAS No. sup b 90040
Chemicals name sup a Anthracene
CAS No. sup b 120127
Chemicals name sup a Anthraquinone
CAS No. sup b 84651
Chemicals name sup a Azobenzene
CAS No. sup b 103333
Chemicals name sup a Benzaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 100527
Chemicals name sup a Benzene
CAS No. sup b 71432
Chemicals name sup a Benzenedisulfonic acid
CAS No. sup b 98486
Chemicals name sup a Benzenesulfonic acid
CAS No. sup b 98113
Chemicals name sup a Benzil
CAS No. sup b 134816
Chemicals name sup a Benzilic acid
CAS No. sup b 76937
Chemicals name sup a Benzoic acid
CAS No. sup b 65850
Chemicals name sup a Benzoin
CAS No. sup b 119539
Chemicals name sup a Benzonitrile
CAS No. sup b 100470
Chemicals name sup a Benzophenone
CAS No. sup b 119619
Chemicals name sup a Benzotrichloride
CAS No. sup b 98077
Chemicals name sup a Benzoyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 98884
Chemicals name sup a Benzyl acetate
CAS No. sup b 140114
Chemicals name sup a Benzyl alcohol
CAS No. sup b 100516
Chemicals name sup a Benzyl benzoate
CAS No. sup b 120514
Chemicals name sup a Benzyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 100447
Chemicals name sup a Benzyl dichloride
CAS No. sup b 98873
Chemicals name sup a Biphenyl
CAS No. sup b 92524
Chemicals name sup a Bisphenol A
CAS No. sup b 80057
Chemicals name sup a Bis(Chloromethyl)Ether
CAS No. sup b 542881
Chemicals name sup a Bromobenzene
CAS No. sup b 108861
Chemicals name sup a Bromoform
CAS No. sup b 75252
Chemicals name sup a Bromonaphthalene
CAS No. sup b 27497514
Chemicals name sup a Butadiene (1,3-)
CAS No. sup b 106990
Chemicals name sup a Butanediol (1,4-)
CAS No. sup b 110634
Chemicals name sup a Butyl acrylate (n-)
CAS No. sup b 141322
Chemicals name sup a Butylbenzyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 85687
Chemicals name sup a Butylene glycol (1,3-)
CAS No. sup b 107880
Chemicals name sup a Butyrolacetone
CAS No. sup b 96480
Chemicals name sup a Caprolactam
CAS No. sup b 105602
Chemicals name sup a Carbaryl
CAS No. sup b 63252
Chemicals name sup a Carbazole
CAS No. sup b 86748
Chemicals name sup a Carbon disulfide
CAS No. sup b 75150
Chemicals name sup a Carbon tetrabromide
CAS No. sup b 558134
Chemicals name sup a Carbon tetrachloride
CAS No. sup b 56235
Chemicals name sup a Carbon tetrafluoride
CAS No. sup b 75730
Chemicals name sup a Chloral
CAS No. sup b 75876
Chemicals name sup a Chloroacetic acid
CAS No. sup b 79118
Chemicals name sup a Chloroacetophenone (2-)
CAS No. sup b 532274
Chemicals name sup a Chloroaniline (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106478
Chemicals name sup a Chlorobenzene
CAS No. sup b 108907
Chemicals name sup a Chlorodifluoroethane
CAS No. sup b 25497294
Chemicals name sup a Chlorodifluoromethane
CAS No. sup b 75456
Chemicals name sup a Chloroform
CAS No. sup b 67663
Chemicals name sup a Chloronaphthalene
CAS No. sup b 25586430
Chemicals name sup a Chloronitrobenzene (1,3-)
CAS No. sup b 121733
Chemicals name sup a Chloronitrobenzene (o-)
CAS No. sup b 88733
Chemicals name sup a Chloronitrobenzene (p-)
CAS No. sup b 100005
Chemicals name sup a Chlorophenol (m-)
CAS No. sup b 108430
Chemicals name sup a Chlorophenol (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95578
Chemicals name sup a Chlorophenol (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106489
Chemicals name sup a Chloroprene
CAS No. sup b 126998
Chemicals name sup a Chlorotoluene (m-)
CAS No. sup b 108418
Chemicals name sup a Chlorotoluene (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95498
Chemicals name sup a Chlorotoluene (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106434
Chemicals name sup a Chlorotrifluoromethane
CAS No. sup b 75729
Chemicals name sup a Chrysene
CAS No. sup b 218019
Chemicals name sup a Cresol and cresylic acid (m-)
CAS No. sup b 108394
Chemicals name sup a Cresol and cresylic acid (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95487
Chemicals name sup a Cresol and cresylic acid (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106445
Chemicals name sup a Cresols and cresylic acids (mixed)
CAS No. sup b 1319773
Chemicals name sup a Crotonaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 123739
Chemicals name sup a Cumene
CAS No. sup b 98828
Chemicals name sup a Cumene hydroperoxide
CAS No. sup b 80159
Chemicals name sup a Cyanoacetic acid
CAS No. sup b 372098
Chemicals name sup a Cyanoformamide
CAS No. sup b 0011
Chemicals name sup a Cyclohexane
CAS No. sup b 110827
Chemicals name sup a Cyclohexanol
CAS No. sup b 108930
Chemicals name sup a Cyclohexanone
CAS No. sup b 108941
Chemicals name sup a Cyclohexylamine
CAS No. sup b 108918
Chemicals name sup a Cyclooctadienes
CAS No. sup b 29965977
Chemicals name sup a Decahydronaphthalene
CAS No. sup b 91178
Chemicals name sup a Diacetoxy-2-Butene (1,4-)
CAS No. sup b 0012
Chemicals name sup a Diallyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 131179
Chemicals name sup a Diaminophenol hydrochloride
CAS No. sup b 137097
Chemicals name sup a Dibromomethane
CAS No. sup b 74953
Chemicals name sup a Dibutoxyethyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 117839
Chemicals name sup a Dichloroaniline (mixed isomers)
CAS No. sup b 27134276
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorobenzene (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106467
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorobenzene (m-)
CAS No. sup b 541731
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorobenzene (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95501
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorobenzidine (3,3 minutes -)
CAS No. sup b 91941
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorodifluoromethane
CAS No. sup b 75718
Chemicals name sup a Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene
dichloride) (EDC)
CAS No. sup b 107062
Chemicals name sup a Dichloroethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 111444
Chemicals name sup a Dichloroethylene (1,2-)
CAS No. sup b 540590
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorophenol (2,4-)
CAS No. sup b 120832
Chemicals name sup a Dichloropropene (1,3-)
CAS No. sup b 542756
Chemicals name sup a Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
CAS No. sup b 1320372
Chemicals name sup a Dichloro-1-butene (3,4-)
CAS No. sup b 760236
Chemicals name sup a Dichloro-2-butene (1,4-)
CAS No. sup b 764410
Chemicals name sup a Diethanolamine
CAS No. sup b 111422
Chemicals name sup a Diethyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 84662
Chemicals name sup a Diethyl sulfate
CAS No. sup b 64675
Chemicals name sup a Diethylamine
CAS No. sup b 109897
Chemicals name sup a Diethylaniline (2,6-)
CAS No. sup b 579668
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 111466
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol dibutyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112732
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol diethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112367
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 111966
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
acetate
CAS No. sup b 124174
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112345
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether
acetate
CAS No. sup b 112152
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 111900
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monohexyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112594
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
acetate
CAS No. sup b 629389
Chemicals name sup a Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 111773
Chemicals name sup a Dihydroxybenzoic acid (Resorcylic acid)
CAS No. sup b 27138574
Chemicals name sup a Diisodecyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 26761400
Chemicals name sup a Diisooctyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 27554263
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylbenzidine (3,3 minutes -)
CAS No. sup b 119937
Chemicals name sup a Dimethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 115106
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylformamide (N,N-)
CAS No. sup b 68122
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-)
CAS No. sup b 57147
Chemicals name sup a Dimethyl phthalate
CAS No. sup b 131113
Chemicals name sup a Dimethyl sulfate
CAS No. sup b 77781
Chemicals name sup a Dimethyl terephthalate
CAS No. sup b 120616
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylamine
CAS No. sup b 124403
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylaminoethanol (2-)
CAS No. sup b 108010
Chemicals name sup a Dimethylaniline (N,N)
CAS No. sup b 121697
Chemicals name sup a Dinitrobenzenes (NOS)
CAS No. sup b 25154545
Chemicals name sup a Dinitrophenol (2,4-)
CAS No. sup b 51285
Chemicals name sup a Dinitrotoluene (2,4-)
CAS No. sup b 121142
Chemicals name sup a Dioxane
CAS No. sup b 123911
Chemicals name sup a Dioxolane (1,3-)
CAS No. sup b 646060
Chemicals name sup a Diphenyl methane
CAS No. sup b 101815
Chemicals name sup a Diphenyl oxide
CAS No. sup b 101848
Chemicals name sup a Diphenyl thiourea
CAS No. sup b 102089
Chemicals name sup a Diphenylamine
CAS No. sup b 122394
Chemicals name sup a Dipropylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 110985
Chemicals name sup a Di(2-methoxyethyl)phthalate
CAS No. sup b 117828
Chemicals name sup a Di-o-tolyguanidine
CAS No. sup b 97392
Chemicals name sup a Dodecyl benzene (branched)
CAS No. sup b 123013
Chemicals name sup a Dodecyl phenol (branched)
CAS No. sup b 0013
Chemicals name sup a Dodecylaniline
CAS No. sup b 28675174
Chemicals name sup a Dodecylbenzene (n-)
CAS No. sup b 121013
Chemicals name sup a Dodecylphenol
CAS No. sup b 27193868
Chemicals name sup a Epichlorohydrin
CAS No. sup b 106898
Chemicals name sup a Ethane
CAS No. sup b 74840
Chemicals name sup a Ethanolamine
CAS No. sup b 141435
Chemicals name sup a Ethyl acrylate
CAS No. sup b 140885
Chemicals name sup a Ethylbenzene
CAS No. sup b 100414
Chemicals name sup a Ethyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 75003
Chemicals name sup a Ethyl chloroacetate
CAS No. sup b 105395
Chemicals name sup a Ethylamine
CAS No. sup b 75047
Chemicals name sup a Ethylaniline (n-)
CAS No. sup b 103695
Chemicals name sup a Ethylaniline (o-)
CAS No. sup b 578541
Chemicals name sup a Ethylcellulose
CAS No. sup b 9004573
Chemicals name sup a Ethylcyanoacetate
CAS No. sup b 105566
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene carbonate
CAS No. sup b 96491
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene dibromide
CAS No. sup b 106934
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 107211
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol diacetate
CAS No. sup b 111557
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol dibutyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112481
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol diethyl ether (1,2-
diethoxyethane)
CAS No. sup b 629141
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 110714
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monoacetate
CAS No. sup b 542596
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
CAS No. sup b 112072
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS No. sup b 111762
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
CAS No. sup b 111159
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 110805
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monohexyl ether
CAS No. sup b 003
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
acetate
CAS No. sup b 110496
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 109864
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monooctyl ether
CAS No. sup b 002
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether
CAS No. sup b 122996
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene glycol monopropyl ether
CAS No. sup b 2807309
Chemicals name sup a Ethylene oxide
CAS No. sup b 75218
Chemicals name sup a Ethylenediamine
CAS No. sup b 107153
Chemicals name sup a Ethylenediamine tetracetic acid
CAS No. sup b 60004
Chemicals name sup a Ethylenimine (Aziridine)
CAS No. sup b 151564
Chemicals name sup a Ethylhexyl acrylate (2-isomer)
CAS No. sup b 103117
Chemicals name sup a Fluoranthene
CAS No. sup b 206440
Chemicals name sup a Formaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 50000
Chemicals name sup a Formamide
CAS No. sup b 75127
Chemicals name sup a Formic acid
CAS No. sup b 64186
Chemicals name sup a Fumaric acid
CAS No. sup b 110178
Chemicals name sup a Glutaraldehyde
CAS No. sup b 111308
Chemicals name sup a Glyceraldehyde
CAS No. sup b 367475
Chemicals name sup a Glycerol
CAS No. sup b 56815
Chemicals name sup a Glycerol tri(polyoxypropylene)ether
CAS No. sup b 25791962
Chemicals name sup a Glycine
CAS No. sup b 56406
Chemicals name sup a Glyoxal
CAS No. sup b 107222
Chemicals name sup a Hexachlorobenzene
CAS No. sup b 118741
Chemicals name sup a Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS No. sup b 87683
Chemicals name sup a Hexachloroethane
CAS No. sup b 67721
Chemicals name sup a Hexadiene (1,4-)
CAS No. sup b 592450
Chemicals name sup a Hexamethylenetetramine
CAS No. sup b 100970
Chemicals name sup a Hexane
CAS No. sup b 110543
Chemicals name sup a Hexanetriol (1,2,6-)
CAS No. sup b 106694
Chemicals name sup a Hydroquinone
CAS No. sup b 123319
Chemicals name sup a Hydroxyadipaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 0016
Chemicals name sup a Iminodiethanol (2,2-)
CAS No. sup b 111422
Chemicals name sup a Isobutyl acrylate
CAS No. sup b 106638
Chemicals name sup a Isobutylene
CAS No. sup b 115117
Chemicals name sup a Isophorone
CAS No. sup b 78591
Chemicals name sup a Isophorone nitrile
CAS No. sup b 0017
Chemicals name sup a Isophthalic acid
CAS No. sup b 121915
Chemicals name sup a Isopropylphenol
CAS No. sup b 25168063
Chemicals name sup a Lead phthalate
CAS No. sup b 0018
Chemicals name sup a Linear alkylbenzene
CAS No. sup b
Chemicals name sup a Maleic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 108316
Chemicals name sup a Maleic hydrazide
CAS No. sup b 123331
Chemicals name sup a Malic acid
CAS No. sup b 6915157
Chemicals name sup a Metanilic acid
CAS No. sup b 121471
Chemicals name sup a Methacrylic acid
CAS No. sup b 79414
Chemicals name sup a Methanol
CAS No. sup b 67561
Chemicals name sup a Methionine
CAS No. sup b 63683
Chemicals name sup a Methyl acetate
CAS No. sup b 79209
Chemicals name sup a Methyl acrylate
CAS No. sup b 96333
Chemicals name sup a Methyl bromide
CAS No. sup b 74839
Chemicals name sup a Methyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 74873
Chemicals name sup a Methyl ethyl ketone
CAS No. sup b 78933
Chemicals name sup a Methyl formate
CAS No. sup b 107313
Chemicals name sup a Methyl hydrazine
CAS No. sup b 60344
Chemicals name sup a Methyl isobutyl carbinol
CAS No. sup b 108112
Chemicals name sup a Methyl isocyanate
CAS No. sup b 624839
Chemicals name sup a Methyl mercaptan
CAS No. sup b 74931
Chemicals name sup a Methyl methacrylate
CAS No. sup b 80626
Chemicals name sup a Methyl phenyl carbinol
CAS No. sup b 98851
Chemicals name sup a Methyl tert-butyl ether
CAS No. sup b 1634044
Chemicals name sup a Methylamine
CAS No. sup b 74895
Chemicals name sup a Methylaniline (n-)
CAS No. sup b 100618
Chemicals name sup a Methylcyclohexane
CAS No. sup b 108872
Chemicals name sup a Methylcyclohexanol
CAS No. sup b 25639423
Chemicals name sup a Methylcyclohexanone
CAS No. sup b 1331222
Chemicals name sup a Methylene chloride
CAS No. sup b 75092
Chemicals name sup a Methylene dianiline (4,4 minutes -
isomer)
CAS No. sup b 101779
Chemicals name sup a Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (4,4
minutes -) (MDI)
CAS No. sup b 101688
Chemicals name sup a Methylionones (a-)
CAS No. sup b 79696
Chemicals name sup a Methylpentynol
CAS No. sup b 77758
Chemicals name sup a Methylstyrene (a-)
CAS No. sup b 98839
Chemicals name sup a Naphthalene
CAS No. sup b 91203
Chemicals name sup a Naphthalene sulfonic acid (a-)
CAS No. sup b 85472
Chemicals name sup a Naphthalene sulfonic acid (b-)
CAS No. sup b 120183
Chemicals name sup a Naphthol (a-)
CAS No. sup b 90153
Chemicals name sup a Naphthol (b-)
CAS No. sup b 135193
Chemicals name sup a Naphtholsulfonic acid (1-)
CAS No. sup b 567180
Chemicals name sup a Naphthylamine sulfonic acid (1,4-)
CAS No. sup b 84866
Chemicals name sup a Naphthylamine sulfonic acid (2,1-)
CAS No. sup b 81163
Chemicals name sup a Naphthylamine (1-)
CAS No. sup b 134327
Chemicals name sup a Naphthylamine (2-)
CAS No. sup b 91598
Chemicals name sup a Nitroaniline (m-)
CAS No. sup b 99092
Chemicals name sup a Nitroaniline (o-)
CAS No. sup b 88744
Chemicals name sup a Nitroanisole (o-)
CAS No. sup b 91236
Chemicals name sup a Nitroanisole (p-)
CAS No. sup b 100174
Chemicals name sup a Nitrobenzene
CAS No. sup b 98953
Chemicals name sup a Nitronaphthalene (1-)
CAS No. sup b 86577
Chemicals name sup a Nitrophenol (p-)
CAS No. sup b 100027
Chemicals name sup a Nitrophenol (o-)
CAS No. sup b 88755
Chemicals name sup a Nitropropane (2-)
CAS No. sup b 79469
Chemicals name sup a Nitrotoluene (all isomers)
CAS No. sup b 1321126
Chemicals name sup a Nitrotoluene (o-)
CAS No. sup b 88722
Chemicals name sup a Nitrotoluene (m-)
CAS No. sup b 99081
Chemicals name sup a Nitrotoluene (p-)
CAS No. sup b 99990
Chemicals name sup a Nitroxylene
CAS No. sup b 25168041
Chemicals name sup a Nonylbenzene (branched)
CAS No. sup b 1081772
Chemicals name sup a Nonylphenol
CAS No. sup b 25154523
Chemicals name sup a N-Vinyl-2-Pyrrolidine
CAS No. sup b 88120
Chemicals name sup a Octene-1
CAS No. sup b 111660
Chemicals name sup a Octylphenol
CAS No. sup b 27193288
Chemicals name sup a Paraformaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 30525894
Chemicals name sup a Paraldehyde
CAS No. sup b 123637
Chemicals name sup a Pentachlorophenol
CAS No. sup b 87865
Chemicals name sup a Pentaerythritol
CAS No. sup b 115775
Chemicals name sup a Peracetic acid
CAS No. sup b 79210
Chemicals name sup a Perchloroethylene
CAS No. sup b 127184
Chemicals name sup a Perchloromethyl mercaptan
CAS No. sup b 594423
Chemicals name sup a Phenanthrene
CAS No. sup b 85018
Chemicals name sup a Phenetidine (p-)
CAS No. sup b 156434
Chemicals name sup a Phenol
CAS No. sup b 108952
Chemicals name sup a Phenolphthalein
CAS No. sup b 77098
Chemicals name sup a Phenolsulfonic acids (all isomers)
CAS No. sup b 1333397
Chemicals name sup a Phenyl anthranilic acid (all isomers)
CAS No. sup b 91407
Chemicals name sup a Phenylenediamine (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106503
Chemicals name sup a Phloroglucinol
CAS No. sup b 108736
Chemicals name sup a Phosgene
CAS No. sup b 75445
Chemicals name sup a Phthalic acid
CAS No. sup b 88993
Chemicals name sup a Phthalic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 85449
Chemicals name sup a Phthalimide
CAS No. sup b 85416
Chemicals name sup a Phthalonitrile
CAS No. sup b 91156
Chemicals name sup a Picoline (b-)
CAS No. sup b 108996
Chemicals name sup a Piperazine
CAS No. sup b 110850
Chemicals name sup a Polyethylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 25322683
Chemicals name sup a Polypropylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 25322694
Chemicals name sup a Propiolactone (beta-)
CAS No. sup b 57578
Chemicals name sup a Propionaldehyde
CAS No. sup b 123386
Chemicals name sup a Propionic acid
CAS No. sup b 79094
Chemicals name sup a Propylene carbonate
CAS No. sup b 108327
Chemicals name sup a Propylene dichloride
CAS No. sup b 78875
Chemicals name sup a Propylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 57556
Chemicals name sup a Propylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 107982
Chemicals name sup a Propylene oxide
CAS No. sup b 75569
Chemicals name sup a Pyrene
CAS No. sup b 129000
Chemicals name sup a Pyridine
CAS No. sup b 110861
Chemicals name sup a p-tert-Butyl toluene
CAS No. sup b 98511
Chemicals name sup a Quinone
CAS No. sup b 106514
Chemicals name sup a Resorcinol
CAS No. sup b 108463
Chemicals name sup a Salicylic acid
CAS No. sup b 69727
Chemicals name sup a Sodium methoxide
CAS No. sup b 124414
Chemicals name sup a Sodium phenate
CAS No. sup b 139026
Chemicals name sup a Stilbene
CAS No. sup b 588590
Chemicals name sup a Styrene
CAS No. sup b 100425
Chemicals name sup a Succinic acid
CAS No. sup b 110156
Chemicals name sup a Succinonitrile
CAS No. sup b 110612
Chemicals name sup a Sulfanilic acid
CAS No. sup b 121573
Chemicals name sup a Sulfolane
CAS No. sup b 126330
Chemicals name sup a Tartaric acid
CAS No. sup b 526830
Chemicals name sup a Terephthalic acid
CAS No. sup b 100210
Chemicals name sup a Tetrabromophthalic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 632791
Chemicals name sup a Tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,4,5-)
CAS No. sup b 95943
Chemicals name sup a Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-)
CAS No. sup b 79345
Chemicals name sup a Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 117088
Chemicals name sup a Tetraethyl lead
CAS No. sup b 78002
Chemicals name sup a Tetraethylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 112607
Chemicals name sup a Tetraethylenepentamine
CAS No. sup b 112572
Chemicals name sup a Tetrahydrofuran
CAS No. sup b 109999
Chemicals name sup a Tetrahydronapthalene
CAS No. sup b 119642
Chemicals name sup a Tetrahydrophthalic anhydride
CAS No. sup b 85438
Chemicals name sup a Tetramethylenediamine
CAS No. sup b 110601
Chemicals name sup a Tetramethylethylenediamine
CAS No. sup b 110189
Chemicals name sup a Tetramethyllead
CAS No. sup b
Chemicals name sup a Thiocarbanilide
CAS No. sup b 102089
Chemicals name sup a Toluene
CAS No. sup b 108883
Chemicals name sup a Toluene 2,4 diamine
CAS No. sup b 95807
Chemicals name sup a Toluene 2,4 diisocyanate
CAS No. sup b 584849
Chemicals name sup a Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
CAS No. sup b 26471625
Chemicals name sup a Toluene sulfonic acids
CAS No. sup b 104154
Chemicals name sup a Toluenesulfonyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 98599
Chemicals name sup a Toluidine (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95534
Chemicals name sup a Trichloroaniline (2,4,6-)
CAS No. sup b 634935
Chemicals name sup a Trichlorobenzene (1,2,3-)
CAS No. sup b 87616
Chemicals name sup a Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)
CAS No. sup b 120821
Chemicals name sup a Trichloroethane (1,1,1-)
CAS No. sup b 71556
Chemicals name sup a Trichloroethane (1,1,2-)
CAS No. sup b 79005
Chemicals name sup a Trichloroethylene
CAS No. sup b 79016
Chemicals name sup a Trichlorofluoromethane
CAS No. sup b 75694
Chemicals name sup a Trichlorophenol (2,4,5-)
CAS No. sup b 95954
Chemicals name sup a Trichlorotrifluoroethane (1,2,2 -1,1,2)
CAS No. sup b 76131
Chemicals name sup a Triethanolamine
CAS No. sup b 102716
Chemicals name sup a Triethylamine
CAS No. sup b 121448
Chemicals name sup a Triethylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 112276
Chemicals name sup a Triethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112492
Chemicals name sup a Triethylene glycol monoethyl ether
CAS No. sup b
Chemicals name sup a Triethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS No. sup b 112356
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylamine
CAS No. sup b 75503
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylcyclohexanol
CAS No. sup b 933482
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylcyclohexanone
CAS No. sup b 2408379
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylcyclohexylamine
CAS No. sup b 007
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylolpropane
CAS No. sup b 77996
Chemicals name sup a Trimethylpentane (2,2,4-)
CAS No. sup b 540841
Chemicals name sup a Tripropylene glycol
CAS No. sup b 24800440
Chemicals name sup a Vinyl acetate
CAS No. sup b 108054
Chemicals name sup a Vinyl chloride
CAS No. sup b 75014
Chemicals name sup a Vinyl toluene
CAS No. sup b 25013154
Chemicals name sup a Vinylcyclohexene (4-)
CAS No. sup b 100403
Chemicals name sup a Vinylidene chloride
CAS No. sup b 75354
Chemicals name sup a Vinyl(N)-pyrrolidone(2-)
CAS No. sup b 88120
Chemicals name sup a Xanthates
CAS No. sup b 140896
Chemicals name sup a Xylene sulfonic acid
CAS No. sup b 25321419
Chemicals name sup a Xylenes (NOS)
CAS No. sup b 1330207
Chemicals name sup a Xylene (m-)
CAS No. sup b 108383
Chemicals name sup a Xylene (o-)
CAS No. sup b 95476
Chemicals name sup a Xylene (p-)
CAS No. sup b 106423
Chemicals name sup a Xylenol
CAS No. sup b 1300716
sup a Isomer means all structural arrangements for the same
number of atoms of each element and does not mean salts, esters,
or derivatives.
sup b CAS Number Chemical Abstract Service number.
Sec. 63.106 Reserved
Sec. 63.107 Reserved
Sec. 63.108 Reserved
Sec. 63.109 Reserved
SUBPART G-National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater
Sec. 63.110 Applicability.
(a) This Subpart applies to all process vents, storage vessels, transfer
operations, and wastewater streams subject to Subpart F of this Part.
(b) For purposes of this Subpart, process vents include all vents meeting the
definition in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F and that discharge vent streams containing
greater than 0.005 weight-percent organic HAP, except that process vents do not
include the following:
(1) Process vents associated with unit process operations that are designed and
operated as batch operations.
(2) Vents from recovery devices installed to control emissions from wastewater
treatment operations in compliance with the wastewater provisions of this subpart
in Secs. 63.132 to 63.147.
(c) For purposes of this Subpart, storage vessels include all vessels meeting
the definition in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F that store liquids that are on the list
of organic HAP's in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F, except that storage vessels do not
include the following:
(1) Vessels storing liquids containing organic hazardous air pollutants as
impurities. An impurity is produced coincidentally with another chemical substance,
and is processed, used, or distributed with it.
(2) Product accumulator vessels. Emissions from product accumulator vessels are
considered to be process vents or equipment leaks.
(3) Wastewater storage tanks. Wastewater storage tanks are covered under the
wastewater provisions.
(d)(1) For purposes of this subpart, transfer racks include all racks meeting
the definition in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F that transfer liquid products that are
on the list of organic hazardous air pollutants in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F. Except
as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, transfer racks do not include the
following:
(i) Racks that only transfer liquids containing organic HAP's as impurities. An
impurity is produced coincidentally with another chemical substance and is
processed, used, or distributed with it.
(ii) Racks that vapor balance during all loading operations.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the transfer
provisions in Secs. 63.126 through 63.130 do not apply to:
(i) Operations during which only liquids containing no organic HAP's or liquids
containing organic HAP's only as impurities are transferred.
(ii) Operations during which vapor balancing is used.
(3) If during operations at a rack, vapors are vapor balanced, the owner or
operator may elect to designate the rack as a transfer rack and comply with the
provisions of Secs. 63.126 through 63.130.
(e) This subpart applies to the following process wastewater streams and
associated treatment residuals:
(1) All streams meeting the definition of wastewater in Sec. 63.101 of subpart
F, that contain greater than or equal to 5 parts per million by weight total VOHAP
and have a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 liter per minute.
(2) Residuals removed from wastewater streams identified in paragraphs (e) (1)
and (2) of this section.
Sec. 63.111 Definitions.
Air oxidation process means a unit process that uses air, or a combination of
air and oxygen, as an oxygen source in combination with one or more organic
reactants to produce one or more organic compounds.
Average concentration, as used in the wastewater provisions, means the flow-
weighted annual average concentration, as determined according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.144(b).
Average flow rate, as used in the wastewater provisions, means the annual
average flow rate, as determined according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.144(e).
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation in which a discrete quantity or
batch of feed is charged into a process unit and distilled or reacted at one time.
Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful energy in the
form of steam and is not an incinerator.
By compound means by individual stream components, not carbon equivalents.
Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to change the
position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a way that the position
of the valve cannot be changed without breaking the seal.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and is
composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, flow inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from an emission point to a control device.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as a flare,
incinerator, process heater, or boiler, used for the combustion of organic
hazardous air pollutant vapors.
Container, as used in the wastewater provisions, means any portable waste
management unit in which a material is stored, transported, treated, or otherwise
handled. Examples of containers are drums, barrels, tank trucks, barges, dumpsters,
tank cars, dump trucks, and ships.
Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or computer readable
form, of data values measured and recorded at least once every 15 minutes. If data
values are measured more frequently than once every 15 minutes, the continuous
record means either: a record of each 15-minute block average calculated from all
measured data values during each 15-minute period; or a record of all measured
values.
Continuous recorder means a data recording device recording an instantaneous
data value at least once every 15 minutes.
Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that completely
covers the space between the wall of the storage vessel and the edge of the
floating roof. A continuous seal may be a vapor-mounted, liquid-mounted, or
metallic shoe seal.
Continuous vapor processing system means a vapor processing system that treats
total organic compound vapors collected from tank trucks or railcars on a demand
basis without intermediate accumulation in a vapor holder.
Control device means any equipment used for recovering or oxidizing organic
hazardous air pollutant vapors. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to,
absorbers, carbon adsorbers, {pg 62694} condensers, incinerators, flares, boilers,
and process heaters. For process vents, recovery devices are not considered control
devices.
Cover, as used in the wastewater provisions, means a device or system which is
placed on or over a waste management unit containing wastewater or residuals so
that the entire surface area is enclosed and sealed to minimize air emissions. A
cover may have openings necessary for operation, inspection, and maintenance of the
waste management unit such as access hatches, sampling ports, and gauge wells
provided that each opening is closed and sealed when not in use. Examples of covers
include a fixed roof installed on a wastewater tank, a lid installed on a
container, and an air-supported enclosure installed over a waste management unit.
Distillation operation means an operation separating one or more feed stream(s)
into two or more exit stream(s), each exit stream having component concentrations
different from those in the feed stream(s). The separation is achieved by the
redistribution of the components between the liquid and vapor phase as they
approach equilibrium within the distillation unit.
Distillation unit means a device or vessel in which distillation operations
occur, including all associated internals (such as trays or packing) and
accessories (such as reboiler, condenser, vacuum pump, steam jet, etc.), plus any
associated recovery system.
External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck-type cover that
rests on the liquid surface in a storage vessel or waste management unit with no
fixed roof.
Fill or filling means the introduction of organic hazardous air pollutant into
a storage vessel or the introduction of a wastewater stream or residual into a
waste management unit, but not necessarily to complete capacity.
Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a waste management unit or storage
vessel in a stationary manner and that does not move with fluctuations in liquid
level.
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler occupied by
the flame envelope.
Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon single deck,
internal floating cover or covered floating roof, which rests upon and is supported
by the liquid being contained, and is equipped with a closure seal or seals to
close the space between the roof edge and waste management unit or storage vessel
wall.
Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas flow is present in a
line.
Group 1 process vent means a process vent for which the flow rate is greater
than or equal to 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, the organic HAP
concentration is greater than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume, and the
total resource effectiveness index value, calculated according to Sec. 63.115, is
less than or equal to 1.0.
Group 2 process vent means a process vent for which the flow rate is less than
0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, the organic HAP concentration is less than
50 parts per million by volume or the total resource effectiveness index value,
calculated according to Sec. 63.115, is greater than 1.0.
Group 1 storage vessel means a storage vessel that meets the criteria for
design storage capacity and stored- liquid maximum true vapor pressure specified in
Table 5 in Sec. 63.119 for storage vessels at existing sources, and in Table 6 in
Sec. 63.119 for storage vessels at new sources.
Group 2 storage vessel means a storage vessel that does not meet the definition
of a Group 1 storage vessel.
Group 1 transfer rack means a transfer rack that annually loads greater than or
equal to 0.65 million liters of liquid products that contain organic hazardous air
pollutants with a rack weighted average vapor pressure greater than or equal to
10.3 kilopascals.
Group 2 transfer rack means a transfer rack that does not meet the definition
of Group 1 transfer rack.
Group 1 wastewater stream means a process wastewater stream from a process unit
at an existing or new source with a total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
average concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 parts per million by weight
of compounds listed in Table 9 of Sec. 63.131 of this Subpart; or a process
wastewater stream from a process unit at an existing or new source that has an
average flow rate greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute and a total
volatile organic hazardous air pollutant average concentration greater than or
equal to 1,000 parts per million by weight. A process wastewater stream from a
process unit at a new source that has an average flow rate greater than or equal to
0.02 liter per minute and an average concentration of 10 parts per million by
weight or greater of any one of the compounds listed in Table 8 of Sec. 63.131 of
this Subpart is also considered a Group 1 wastewater stream. Average flow rate and
total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant average concentration are determined
for the point of generation of each process wastewater stream.
Group 2 wastewater stream means any process wastewater stream that does not
meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Halogenated vent stream or halogenated stream means a vent stream from a
process vent or transfer operation determined to have a total concentration of
halogen atoms (by volume) contained in organic compounds of 200 parts per million
by volume or greater determined by Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or other
test or data validated by Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A, or by
engineering assessment or process knowledge that no halogenated organic compounds
are present. For example, 150 parts per million by volume of ethylene dichloride
would contain 300 parts per million by volume of total halogen atoms.
Halogens and hydrogen halides means hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl sub
2), hydrogen bromide (HBr), bromine (Br sub 2), and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device that is used for destroying
organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste gas to combustion
temperatures. Any energy recovery section present is not physically formed into one
manufactured or assembled unit with the combustion section; rather, the energy
recovery section is a separate section following the combustion section and the two
are joined by ducts or connections carrying flue gas.
Individual drain system means the system used to convey wastewater streams from
a process unit, product or feed storage tank, or waste management unit to a waste
management unit. The term includes all process drains and junction boxes, together
with their associated sewer lines and other junction boxes, manholes, sumps, and
lift stations, down to the receiving waste management unit. The individual drain
system shall be designed to segregate the vapors within the system from other drain
systems. A segregated stormwater sewer system, which is a drain and collection
system designed and operated for the sole purpose of collecting rainfall-runoff at
a facility, and which is segregated from all other individual drain systems, is
excluded from this definition.
Intermittent vapor processing system means a vapor processing system that
employs an intermediate vapor holder to accumulate total organic compound vapors
collected from tank trucks or railcars, and treats the accumulated {pg 62695}
vapors only during automatically controlled cycles.
Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the liquid surface
(but not necessarily in complete contact with it) inside a storage vessel or waste
management unit that has a permanently affixed roof.
Junction box means a manhole access point to a wastewater sewer system line or
a lift station.
Liquid-mounted seal means a foam- or liquid- filled seal mounted in contact
with the liquid between the wall of the storage vessel or waste management unit and
the floating roof. The seal is mounted continuously around the circumference of the
vessel or unit.
Loading cycle means the time period from the beginning of filling a tank truck
or railcar until flow to the control device ceases, as measured by the flow
indicator.
Loading rack means the sum of all loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves,
relief valves, and other piping and valves contiguous with, and that are part of, a
single system used to fill tank trucks and railcars at a single geographic site.
Loading equipment and operations that are physically separate (i.e., do not share
common piping, valves, and other equipment) are considered to be separate loading
racks.
Mass flow rate, as used in the wastewater provisions, means the mass of a
constituent in a wastewater stream, determined by multiplying the average
concentration of that constituent in the wastewater stream by the annual volumetric
flow rate and density of the wastewater stream.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by
the total organic HAP's in the stored liquid at the temperature equal to the
highest calendar-month average of the liquid storage temperature for liquids stored
above or below the ambient temperature or at the local maximum monthly average
temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for liquids stored at the
ambient temperature, as determined:
(1) In accordance with methods described in American Petroleum Institute
Bulletin 2517, Evaporation Loss From External Floating Roof Tanks; or
(2) As obtained from standard reference texts; or
(3) As determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials Method
D2879-83; or
(4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
Metallic shoe seal or mechanical shoe seal means a metal sheet that is held
vertically against the wall of the storage vessel by springs, weighted levers, or
other mechanisms and is connected to the floating roof by braces or other means. A
flexible coated fabric (envelope) spans the annular space between the metal sheet
and the floating roof.
Oil- water separator or organic-water separator means a waste management unit,
generally a tank used to separate oil or organics from water. An oil-water or
organic-water separator consists of not only the separation unit but also the
forebay and other separator basins, skimmers, weirs, grit chambers, sludge hoppers,
and bar screens that are located directly after the individual drain system and
prior to additional treatment units such as an air flotation unit, clarifier, or
biological treatment unit. Examples of an oil-water or organic- water separator
include, but are not limited to, an American Petroleum Institute separator,
parallel-plate interceptor, and corrugated-plate interceptor with the associated
ancillary.
Operating permit means a permit required by 40 CFR part 70.
Organic hazardous air pollutant or organic HAP means any of the chemicals
listed in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F.
Organic monitoring device means a unit of equipment used to indicate the
concentration level of organic compounds exiting a recovery device based on a
detection principle such as infra-red, photoionization, or thermal conductivity.
Point of generation means the location where the wastewater stream exits the
process unit component or product or feed storage tank prior to mixing with other
wastewater streams or prior to handling or treatment in a piece of equipment which
is not an integral part of the process unit. A piece of equipment is an integral
part of the process unit if it is essential to the operation of the unit (i.e.,
removal of the equipment would result in the process unit being shut down). For
example, a stripping column is part of the process unit if it produces the
principle product stream and a wastewater which is discharged to the sewer.
However, an identical stripper which treats a wastewater stream and recovers
residual product would not be considered an integral part of the process unit. When
quantifying parameters descriptive of the point of generation (e.g., average flow
rate and average concentration) by measurement or sampling, the end results should
be representative of the conditions at the point where the wastewater stream exits
the process unit before it is treated or mixed with other wastewater streams, and
prior to exposure to the atmosphere.
Primary fuel means the fuel that provides the principal heat input to the
device. To be considered primary, the fuel must be able to sustain operation
without the addition of other fuels.
Process heater means a device that transfers heat liberated by burning fuel
directly to process streams or to heat transfer liquids other than water.
Process unit has the same meaning as chemical manufacturing process as defined
in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F and means the equipment assembled and connected by
pipes or ducts to manufacture as a product one or more of the chemicals listed in
Sec. 63.105 of subpart F of this part. A process unit includes all the equipment
associated with the unit operations, storage and transport of feed material to the
unit operations, and storage and transfer of products from the unit operations.
Process unit shutdown means a work practice or operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of a process unit during which it is
technically feasible to clear process material from a process unit or part of a
process unit consistent with safety constraints and during which repairs can be
effected. An unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not considered a process unit shutdown. An unscheduled work practice or operational
procedure that would stop production from a process unit or part of a process unit
for a shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process unit or
part of the process unit of materials and start up the unit, and would result in
greater emissions than delay of repair of leaking components until the next
scheduled process unit shutdown is not considered a process unit shutdown. The use
of spare equipment and technically feasible bypassing of equipment without stopping
production are not considered process unit shutdowns.
Product accumulator vessel means any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver,
surge control vessel, or product separator that is vented to the atmosphere either
directly without first going through a pressure relief device or through a vacuum
producing system.
Product tank, as used in the wastewater provisions, means a stationary unit
that is designed to contain an accumulation of materials that are fed to or
produced by a process unit, and is constructed primarily of non-earthen materials
(e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which provide structural support. This term
has the {pg 62696} same meaning as a product storage vessel.
Product tank drawdown means any material or mixture of materials discharged
from a product tank for the purpose of removing water or other contaminants from
the product tank.
Rack weighted average vapor pressure means the average vapor pressure of
organic HAP's transferred at a transfer rack weighted by throughput.
Reactor process means a unit operation in which one or more chemicals or
reactants, other than air, are combined or decomposed in such a way that their
molecular structures are altered and one or more new organic compounds are formed.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment, such as an absorber,
carbon adsorber, or condenser, capable of and used for the purpose of recovering
chemicals for use, reuse, or sale.
Relief valve means a valve used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine
discharge. A relief valve discharge can result from an operator error, a
malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected cause
that requires immediate venting of gas from process equipment in order to avoid
safety hazards or equipment damage.
Reference control technology for process vents means a combustion device used
to reduce organic HAP emissions by 98 percent, or to an outlet concentration of 20
parts per million by volume.
Reference control technology for storage vessels means an internal floating
roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(b) of this subpart, an external
floating roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(c) of this subpart, or a
closed vent system to a control device achieving 95 percent reduction in organic
HAP emissions. For purposes of emissions averaging, these three technologies are
considered equivalent.
Reference control technology for transfer racks means a combustion device or
recovery device used to reduce organic HAP emissions by 98 percent, or to an outlet
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume; or a vapor balancing system.
Reference control technology for wastewater means the use of: (1) Fixed-roof
and closed-vent systems on all wastewater tanks and oil-water separators managing
wastewater, and covers and closed-vent systems on all surface impoundments,
containers, individual drain systems and treatment processes managing wastewater;
(2) a steam stripper meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.138(f) of this subpart
or any of the other alternative control measures specified in Sec. 63.138(b), (c),
and (d); and (3) a control device to reduce by 95 percent (or to an outlet
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume for combustion devices) the organic
HAP emissions in the vapor streams vented from wastewater tanks, oil-water
separators, containers, surface impoundments, individual drain systems, and
treatment processes (including the design steam stripper) managing wastewater.
Residual means any material containing organic hazardous air pollutant, that is
removed from a wastewater stream by a waste management unit or treatment process
that does not destroy organics (nondestructive unit). Examples of residuals from
nondestructive wastewater management units are: the organic layer and bottom
residue removed by a decanter or organic-water separator; and the overheads
condensate stream from a steam stripper or air stripper. Residuals do not include
the effluent wastewater stream that results from management or treatment of the
influent wastewater stream to the waste management unit. Examples of materials
which are not residuals are: The effluent wastewater stream exiting a decanter or
organic- water separator after the organic layer has been removed; the bottoms from
a steam stripper or air stripper; and sludges, ash, or other materials removed from
the wastewater being treated by destructive devices such as biological treatment
units and incinerators.
Secondary fuel means a fuel fired through a burner other than the primary fuel
burner that provides supplementary heat in addition to the heat provided by the
primary fuel.
Sewer line means a lateral, trunk line, branch line, or other conduit
including, but not limited to, grates, trenches, etc., used to convey wastewater
streams or residuals to a downstream waste management unit.
Single-seal system means a floating roof having one continuous seal that
completely covers the space between the wall of the storage vessel and the edge of
the floating roof. This seal may be a vapor-mounted, liquid-mounted, or metallic
shoe seal.
Specific gravity monitoring device means a unit of equipment used to monitor
specific gravity and having an accuracy of sup 6 0.02 specific gravity units.
Steam jet ejector means a steam nozzle which discharges a high-velocity jet
across a suction chamber that is connected to the equipment to be evacuated.
Surface impoundment means a waste management unit which is a natural
topographic depression, manmade excavation, or diked area formed primarily of
earthen materials (although it may be lined with manmade materials), which is
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or waste containing free liquids.
A surface impoundment is used for the purpose of treating, storing, or disposing of
wastewater or residuals, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface
impoundments are equalization, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons.
Temperature monitoring device means a unit of equipment used to monitor
temperature and having an accuracy of sup 6 1 percent of the temperature being
monitored expressed in degrees Celsius or sup 6 0.5 degrees Celsius ( degrees C),
whichever is greater.
The 33/35 program means a voluntary pollution prevention initiative established
and administered by EPA to encourage emissions reductions of 17 chemicals emitted
in large volumes by industrial facilities. Companies commit to participating in the
33/35 program by sending a letter to the EPA 33/35 Program Office at TS-792A. The
EPA Document Number 741-K-92-001 provides more information about the 33/35 program.
Total organic compounds or TOC, as used in the process vents provisions, means
those compounds measured according to the procedures of Method 18 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
Total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant means the sum of the volatile
portions of all individually-speciated organic HAP's, as measured by proposed
Method 305.
Total resource effectiveness index value or TRE index value means a measure of
the supplemental total resource requirement per unit reduction of organic HAP
associated with a process vent stream, based on vent stream flow rate, emission
rate of organic HAP, net heating value, and corrosion properties (whether or not
the vent stream contains halogenated compounds), as quantified by the equations
given under Sec. 63.115.
Treatment process means a specific technique that removes or destroys the
organics in a wastewater or residual stream such as a steam stripping unit, thin-
film evaporation unit, waste incinerator, biological treatment unit, or any other
process applied to wastewater streams or residuals to comply with Sec. 63.138 of
this subpart.
Vapor balancing system means a piping system that is designed to collect
organic HAP vapors displaced from tank {pg 62697} trucks or railcars during
loading, and to route the collected organic HAP vapors to the storage vessel from
which the liquid being loaded originated.
Vapor collection system, as used in the transfer provisions, means the
equipment used to collect and transport organic HAP vapors displaced during the
loading of tank trucks or railcars. This does not include the vapor collection
system that is part of any tank truck or railcar vapor collection manifold system.
Vapor-mounted seal means a continuous seal that completely covers the annular
space between the wall of the storage vessel or waste management unit and the edge
of the floating roof and is mounted such that there is a vapor space between the
stored liquid and the bottom of the seal.
Vent stream, as used in the process vent provisions, means any gas stream
discharged directly from an air oxidation process, reactor process, or distillation
operation to the atmosphere or indirectly to the atmosphere after diversion through
other process equipment. The vent stream excludes relief valve discharges and
equipment leaks, but includes vents from product accumulator vessels.
Volatile organic or VO refers to the portion of organic compounds (including
both HAP and non-HAP organic compounds) in a wastewater stream that is measured by
Method 25D, as found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant or VOHAP means the volatile portion of
an individually- speciated organic HAP in a wastewater stream or a residual that is
measured by proposed Method 305.
Waste management unit means any component, piece of equipment, structure, or
transport mechanism used in conveying, storing, treating, or disposing of any
waste, including a wastewater stream or a residual. Examples of waste management
units include wastewater tanks, air flotation units, surface impoundments,
containers, oil-water or organic-water separators, individual drain systems,
biological treatment units, waste incinerators, and organic removal devices such as
decanters, steam and air stripper units, and thin-film evaporation units.
Wastewater stream means any organic HAP-containing (see subpart F) liquid or
material separated from the liquid that results from either direct or indirect
contact of water with organic compounds. The characteristics of a wastewater stream
(e.g., flow rate, VOHAP concentration) are determined for the point of generation.
Examples of a wastewater stream include, but are not limited to, process
wastewater, product or feed tank drawdown, cooling tower blowdown, steam trap
condensate, reflux, and fluids drained into and material recovered from waste
management units. This definition is illustrated in Figure 2 of Sec. 63.131 of this
subpart.
Wastewater tank means a stationary waste management unit that is designed to
contain an accumulation of wastewater or residuals and is constructed primarily of
non-earthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which provide
structural support. Wastewater tanks used for flow equalization are included in
this definition.
Water seal controls means a seal pot, p-leg trap, or other type of trap filled
with water that creates a water barrier between the sewer line and the atmosphere.
Sec. 63.112 Emission limits.
(a) The owner or operator of an existing source subject to the requirements of
this subpart shall control emissions of organic HAP's to the level specified by the
following equation:
E sub A 0.02 summation of EPV sub 1 + summation of EPV sub 2 + 0.05 summation
of ES sub 1 + summation of ES sub 2 + 0.02 summation of ETR sub 1 + summation of
ETR sub 2 + summation of EWW sub 1C + summation of EWW sub 2
where:
E sub A Emission rate, in megagrams per year, allowed for the source.
0.02 summation of EPV sub 1 Sum of the residual emissions from all Group 1
process vents, as defined in Sec. 63.111.
summation of EPV sub 2 Sum of the emissions from all Group 2 process vents.
0.05 summation of ES sub 1 Sum of the residual emissions from all Group 1
storage vessels, as defined in Sec. 63.111.
summation of ES sub 2 Sum of the emissions from all Group 2 storage vessels.
0.02 summation of ETR sub 1 Sum of the residual emissions from all Group 1
transfer racks, as defined in Sec. 63.111.
summation of ETR sub 2 Sum of the emissions from all Group 2 transfer racks.
summation of EWW sub 1C Sum of the residual emissions from all Group 1
wastewater streams, as defined in Sec. 63.111. This term is calculated for each
Group 1 stream according to the equation for EWW sub ic in Sec. 63.150(f)(5)(i).
summation of EWW sub 2 Sum of emissions from all Group 2 wastewater streams.
(b) The owner or operator of a new source subject to the requirements of this
subpart shall control emissions of organic HAP's to the levels specified in the
equation in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Compliance with the emission standard in paragraphs (a) or (b) shall be
demonstrated in one or both of the following two ways:
(1) The owner or operator can comply by applying reference control technologies
that achieve the required level of control at Group 1 process vents, storage
vessels, transfer racks, and wastewater streams and associated treatment residuals.
For example, the owner or operator could apply a combustion device achieving 98
percent emission reduction to Group 1 process vents.
(i) The owner or operator using this compliance approach for some or all Group
1 emission points must comply for each emission point with the process vent
provisions in Secs. 63.113 through 63.118, the storage vessel provisions in Secs.
63.119 through 63.123, the transfer operation provisions in Secs. 63.126 through
63.130, and the wastewater provisions in Secs. 63.131 to 63.147 of this Subpart.
(ii) The owner or operator of a Group 1 wastewater stream is not required to
apply the reference control technology if he complies with the provisions in Sec.
63.132(d)(4).
(iii) The owner or operator using this compliance approach shall also comply
with the requirements of Sec. 63.151 and Sec. 63.152, as applicable.
(2) The owner or operator may elect to control different groups of emission
points within the source to different levels than specified under Secs. 63.113
through 63.147 as long as the overall emissions for the source do not exceed the
emission level specified in Sec. 63.112.
(i) Owners or operators using this emissions averaging compliance approach must
calculate their emission debits and credits for those emission points involved in
the emission average as specified in Sec. 63.150 and comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.151 and Sec. 63.152, as applicable.
(ii) Emission debits and credits must be calculated separately for new and
existing sources. New sources shall not be included in the same emission average as
existing sources. The determination of whether an emission point is part of a new
or existing source shall be made according to the provisions of subparts A fn 1 and
F of this part.
fn 1 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
Sec. 63.113 Process vent provisions.
(a) The owner or operator of a Group 1 process vent as defined in subpart F and
in this subpart shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) of this section.
(1) Reduce emissions of organic HAP using a flare.
(i) The flare shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 60.18.{pg 62698}
(ii) Halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec. 63.111, shall not be vented
to a flare.
(2) Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 weight percent or to a concentration
of 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen,
whichever is less stringent. Compliance can be determined by measuring either
organic HAP or TOC using the procedures in Sec. 63.116.
(3) Achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 1.0 at the outlet of
the final recovery device, or prior to release of the vent stream to the atmosphere
if no recovery device is present. In this case, the vent shall comply with the
provisions for a Group 2 process vent specified in either paragraph (d) or (e) of
this section, whichever is applicable.
(b) If a boiler or process heater is used to comply with the percent reduction
requirement or concentration limit specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
then the vent stream shall be introduced into the flame zone of such a device.
(c) If a combustion device is used to comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this
section for a halogenated vent stream, then the vent stream shall be ducted from
the combustion device to a scrubber before it is discharged to the atmosphere. The
scrubber shall reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens as defined
in Sec. 63.111 by 99 percent or shall reduce the outlet concentration of each
individual hydrogen halide or halogen to 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic meter
or less, whichever is less stringent.
(d) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent having a flow rate greater
than or equal to 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, a HAP concentration greater
than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume, and a TRE index value greater than
1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0 shall maintain a TRE index value greater than 1.0
and shall comply with the monitoring of recovery device parameters in Sec. 63.114
(b) or (c), the TRE index calculations of Sec. 63.115, and the applicable reporting
and recordkeeping provisions of Sec. 63.117 and Sec. 63.118. Such owner or operator
is not subject to any other provisions of Secs. 63.114 through 63.118.
(e) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent with a TRE index greater
than 4.0 shall maintain a TRE index value greater than 4.0, comply with the
provisions for calculation of TRE index in Sec. 63.115 and the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.117(b), Sec. 63.118(c), and Sec. 63.118(h), and
is not subject to monitoring or any other provisions of Secs. 63.114 through
63.118.
(f) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent with a flow rate less than
0.005 standard cubic meter per minute shall maintain a flow rate less than 0.005
standard cubic meter per minute; comply with the Group determination procedures in
Sec. 63.115 (a), (b), and (e); and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.117(c), Sec. 63.118(d), and Sec. 63.118(i); and is not subject to
monitoring or any other provisions of Secs. 63.114 through 63.118.
(g) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent with a concentration less
than 50 parts per million by volume shall maintain a concentration less than 50
parts per million by volume; comply with the Group determination procedures in Sec.
63.115 (a), (c), and (e); the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
63.117(d), Sec. 63.118(e), and Sec. 63.118(j); and is not subject to monitoring or
any other provisions of Secs. 63.114 through 63.118.
(h) The owner or operator of a process vent complying with paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this section is not required to perform the group determination described
in Sec. 63.115.
Sec. 63.114 Process vent provisions-monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a process vent that uses a combustion device to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.113 (a)(1) or (a)(2) shall install
monitoring equipment specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of
this section, depending on the type of combustion device used. All monitoring
equipment shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to
manufacturers specifications.
(1) Where an incinerator is used, a temperature monitoring device equipped with
a continuous recorder is required.
(i) Where an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator is used, a
temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox in a position before any substantial heat
exchange occurs.
(ii) Where a catalytic incinerator is used, temperature monitoring devices
shall be installed in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed.
(2) Where a flare is used, the following monitoring equipment is required: A
heat-sensing device, such as an ultra-violet beam sensor or thermocouple, at the
pilot light to indicate the continuous presence of a flame.
(3) Where a boiler or process heater of less than 44 megawatts design heat
input capacity is used, the following monitoring equipment is required: a
temperature monitoring device in the firebox equipped with a continuous recorder.
Any boiler or process heater in which all vent streams are introduced with primary
fuel is exempt from this requirement.
(4) Where a scrubber is used with an incinerator, boiler, or process heater in
the case of halogenated vent streams, the following monitoring equipment is
required for the scrubber.
(i) A pH monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder shall be
installed to monitor the pH of the scrubber effluent.
(ii) Flow meters equipped with continuous recorders shall be located at the
scrubber influent for liquid flow and the scrubber inlet for gas stream flow.
(b) Each owner or operator of a process vent with a TRE index value greater
than 1.0 as specified under Sec. 63.113(a)(3) or Sec. 63.113(d), that uses one or
more product recovery devices shall install either an organic monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder or the monitoring equipment specified in
paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section, depending on the type of
recovery device used. All monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications. Monitoring is not
required for process vents with TRE index values greater than 4.0 as specified in
Sec. 63.113(e).
(1) Where an absorber is the final recovery device in the recovery system, a
scrubbing liquid temperature monitoring device and a specific gravity monitoring
device, each equipped with a continuous recorder shall be used;
(2) Where a condenser is the final recovery device in the recovery system, a
condenser exit (product side) temperature monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder shall be used;
(3) Where a carbon adsorber is the final recovery device in the recovery
system, an integrating regeneration stream flow monitoring device having an
accuracy of sup 6 10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream
mass flow for each regeneration cycle; and a carbon bed temperature monitoring
device, capable of recording the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and
within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle.
(c) An owner or operator of a process vent may request approval to monitor
parameters other than those listed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. The
request shall be submitted according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.151(f)
or Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart. Approval {pg 62699} shall be requested if the
owner or operator:
(1) Uses a control device other than an incinerator, boiler, process heater, or
flare; or
(2) Maintains a TRE greater than 1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0 without a
recovery device or with a recovery device other than the recovery devices listed in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; or
(3) Uses one of the control or recovery devices listed in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, but seeks to monitor a parameter other than those specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b).
(d) The owner or operator of a process vent using a vent system that contains
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the control device used to
comply with Sec. 63.113 (a)(1) or (a)(2) shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, and equipment subject to Sec. 63.167 are not subject to this
paragraph.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that provides a
record of vent stream flow at least once every 15 minutes. The flow indicator shall
be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the vent stream
away from the control device to the atmosphere; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to ensure that the valve is
maintained in the closed position and the vent stream is not diverted through the
bypass line.
(e) The owner or operator shall establish a range that indicates proper
operation of the control or recovery device for each parameter monitored under
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. In order to establish the range, the
information required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart shall be submitted in the
Notification of Compliance Status or the operating permit application.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXX.)
Sec. 63.115 Process vent provisions-methods and procedures for process vent group
determination.
(a) For purposes of determining process vent stream flow rate, total organic
HAP or TOC concentration or TRE index value, as specified under paragraph (b), (c),
or (d) of this section, the sampling site shall be after the last product recovery
device (if any recovery devices are present) but prior to the inlet of any control
device that is present, prior to any dilution of the process vent stream, and prior
to release to the atmosphere.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, shall be used for
selection of the sampling site.
(2) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller than 0.10
meter in diameter.
(b) To demonstrate that a process vent stream flow rate is less than 0.005
standard cubic meter per minute in accordance with the Group 2 process vent
definition of this subpart, the owner or operator shall measure flow rate by the
following procedures:
(1) The sampling site shall be selected as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or
2D of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate that a process vent stream
has an organic HAP concentration below 50 parts per million by volume in accordance
with the Group 2 process vent definition of this subpart shall measure either total
organic HAP or TOC concentration using the following procedures:
(1) The sampling site shall be selected as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) Method 18 or Method 25A of part 60, appendix A shall be used to measure
concentration; alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated
according to the protocol in Method 301 of part 63, appendix A may be used.
(3) Where Method 18 is used, the following procedures shall be used to
calculate parts per million by volume concentration:
(i) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If grab sampling is used,
then the samples shall be taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as
15 minute intervals during the run.
(ii) The concentration of either TOC (minus methane and ethane) or organic HAP
shall be calculated according to paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) or (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this
section as applicable.
(A) The TOC concentration (C sub TOC) is the sum of the concentrations of the
individual components and shall be computed for each run using the following
equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub TOC Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry basis, parts per
million by volume.
C sub ji Concentration of sample component ''j'' of the sample ''i'', dry
basis, parts per million by volume.
n Number of components in the sample.
x Number of samples in the sample run.
(B) The total organic HAP concentration (C sup HAP) shall be computed according
to the equation in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section except that only the
organic HAP species shall be summed. The list of organic HAP's is provided in Sec.
63.105 of subpart F of this part.
(iii) The concentration of TOC or total organic HAP shall be corrected to 3
percent oxygen.
(A) The emission rate correction factor, integrated sampling and analysis
procedures of Method 3B of part 60, appendix A shall be used to determine the
oxygen concentration (%0 sub 2d). The samples shall be taken during the same time
that the TOC or total organic HAP samples are taken.
(B) The concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (C sub c) shall be computed
using the following equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub c Concentration of TOC or total organic HAP corrected to 3 percent
oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
C sub m Concentration measured (TOC or C sub HAP as applicable), parts per
million by volume.
%0 sub 2d Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume.
(4) Where Method 25A is used, the following procedures shall be used to
calculate parts per million by volume TOC concentration:
(i) Method 25A shall be used only if a single organic HAP compound is greater
than 50 percent of total organic HAP, by volume, in the process vent stream.
(ii) The process vent stream composition may be determined by either process
knowledge, test data collected using an appropriate EPA Method or a method or data
validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of part 63, appendix A. Examples
of {pg 62700} information that could constitute process knowledge include
calculations based on material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test
results provided the results are still relevant to the current process vent stream
conditions.
(iii) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A shall be the
single organic HAP compound present at greater than 50 percent of the total organic
HAP by volume.
(iv) The span value for Method 25A shall be 50 parts per million by volume.
(v) Use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the high-level
calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from
the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(vi) The concentration of TOC shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen using the
procedures and equation in (c)(3)(iii) of this section.
(vii) The owner or operator shall demonstrate that the concentration of TOC
including methane and ethane measured by Method 25A, corrected to 3 percent oxygen
is below 25 parts per million by volume to be considered a Group 2 vent with an
organic HAP concentration below 50 parts per million by volume and to qualify for
the low concentration exclusion in Sec. 63.113(g).
(d) To determine the TRE index value, the owner or operator shall conduct a TRE
determination and calculate the TRE index value according to the procedures in
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and the TRE equation in paragraph (d)(3)
of this section.
(1) Engineering assessment may be used to determine process vent stream flow
rate, net heating value, TOC emission rate, and total organic HAP emission rate for
the representative operating condition expected to yield the lowest TRE index
value.
(i) If the TRE value calculated using such engineering assessment and the TRE
equation in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is greater than 4.0, then the owner or
operator is not required to perform the measurements specified in paragraph (d)(2)
of this section.
(ii) If the TRE value calculated using such engineering assessment and the TRE
equation in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is less than or equal to 4.0, then the
owner or operator is required to perform the measurements specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section for group determination or consider the process vent a Group
1 vent and comply with the emission reduction specified in Sec. 63.113(a).
(iii) Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(A) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of current
operating practices at the process unit.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under
representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, TOC emission rate, organic HAP emission rate, or net
heating value limit specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the
process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles,
measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples
of analytical methods include, but are not limited to:
(1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to estimate maximum
organic HAP concentrations,
(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment design such as
pump or blower capacities,
(3) Estimation of TOC or organic HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions,
(4) Estimation of maximum expected net heating value based on the stream
concentration of each organic compound or, alternatively, as if all TOC in the
stream were the compound with the highest heating value.
(E) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering assessment
shall be documented.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, process vent stream
flow rate, net heating value, TOC emission rate, and total organic HAP emission
rate shall be measured and calculated according to the procedures in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(v) of this section and used as input to the TRE index
value calculation in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(i) The vent stream volumetric flow rate (Qs), in standard cubic meters per
minute at 20 degrees C, shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part
60, appendix A, as appropriate. If the vent stream tested passes through a final
steam jet ejector and is not condensed, the stream volumetric flow shall be
corrected to 2.3 percent moisture.
(ii) The molar composition of the process vent stream, which is used to
calculate net heating value, shall be determined using the following methods:
(A) Method 18 of part 60, appendix A to measure the concentration of each
organic compound.
(B) American Society for Testing and Materials D1946-77 to measure the
concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
(C) Method 4 to measure the content of water vapor.
(iii) The net heating value of the vent stream shall be calculated using the
following equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
H sub T Net heating value of the sample, megaJoule per standard cubic meter,
where the net enthalpy per mole of vent stream is based on combustion at 25 degrees
C and 760 millimeters of mercury, but the standard temperature for determining the
volume corresponding to one mole is 20 degrees C, as in the definition of Q sub s
(vent stream flow rate).
K sub 1 Constant, 1.740 X 10sup -7 (parts per million)sup -1 (gram-mole per
standard cubic meter) (megaJoule per kilocalorie), where standard temperature for
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees C.
B sub ws Water vapor content of the vent stream, proportion by volume; except
that if the vent stream passes through a final steam jet and is not condensed, it
shall be assumed that B sub ws 0.023 in order to correct to 2.3 percent moisture.
C sub j Concentration on a dry basis of compound j in parts per million, as
measured for all organic compounds by Method 18 and measured for hydrogen and
carbon monoxide by American Society for Testing and Materials D1946-77 as indicated
in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
H sub j Net heat of combustion of compound j, kilocalorie per gram-mole, based
on combustion at 25 degrees C and 760 millimeters mercury. The heats of combustion
of vent stream components shall be determined using American Society for Testing
and Materials D2382-76 if published values are not available or cannot be
calculated.
(iv) The emission rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) (E sub TOC) and the
emission rate of total organic HAP (E sub HAP) in the vent stream shall both be
calculated using the following equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
E Emission rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or emission rate of total
organic HAP in the sample, kilograms per hour.
K sub 2 Constant, 2.494 x 10sup -6 (parts per million)sup -1 (gram-mole per
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature
for (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees C.
C sub j Concentration on a dry basis of organic compound j in parts per million
as measured by Method 18 as indicated in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section. If
the TOC emission rate is being calculated, C sub j includes all organic compounds
measured minus methane and ethane; if the total organic HAP emission rate is being
calculated, only organic HAP compounds listed in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F are
included.
M sub j Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-mole.
Q sub s Vent stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meter per minute) at a
temperature of 20 degrees C.
(v) The total vent stream concentration of total halogen atoms (by volume)
contained in organic compounds (parts per million by volume, by compound) shall be
summed from the individual halogen atoms in each organic HAP compound based on the
molecular formula of the compound and the concentrations of compounds containing
halogens based on the following procedures:
(A) Process knowledge that no halogen or hydrogen halides are present in the
process, or
(B) Sum of halogen atoms from organic compounds containing halogens measured by
Method 18, or
(3) The owner or operator shall calculate the TRE index value of the vent
stream using the equations and procedures in this paragraph.
(i) The equation for calculating the TRE index for a vent stream controlled by
a flare or incinerator is as follows:
TRE
1 / E sub HAP
/
a + b(Q sub s) + c(H sub T) + d(E sub TOC)
where:
TRE TRE index value.
E sub HAP Hourly emission rate of total organic HAP (kilograms per hour) as
calculated in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
Q sub s Vent stream flow rate (standard cubic meters per minute) at a standard
temperature of 20 degrees C, as calculated in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)(i) of this
section.
H sub T Vent stream net heating value (megaJoules per standard cubic meter) as
calculated in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
E sub TOC Hourly emission rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) as calculated
in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
a,b,c,d Coefficients presented in Table 1, selected in accordance with
paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of a nonhalogenated vent stream shall calculate the
TRE index value based on the use of a flare, a thermal incinerator with 0 percent
heat recovery, and a thermal incinerator with 70 percent heat recovery and shall
select the lowest TRE index value. The owner or operator shall use the applicable
coefficients in Table 1 of this subpart for nonhalogenated vent streams located
within existing sources and the applicable coefficients in Table 2 of this subpart
for nonhalogenated vent streams located within new sources.
(iii) The owner or operator of a halogenated vent stream shall calculate the
TRE index value based on the use of a thermal incinerator with 0 percent heat
recovery, and a scrubber. The owner or operator shall use the applicable
coefficients in Table 1 of this subpart for halogenated vent streams located within
existing sources and the applicable coefficients in Table 2 of this subpart for
halogenated vent streams located within new sources.
Table 1.- Coefficients for Total Resource Effectiveness for
Existing Source Nonhalogenated and Halogenated Vent Streams
Type of stream Nonhalogenated
Control device basis Flare
Values of coefficients
a 2.902
b 5.490X10sup -1
c -1.153X10sup -2
d -1.100X10sup -3
Control device basis Thermal Incinerator 0 Percent Heat
Recovery
Values of coefficients
a 2.238
b 9.400X10sup -2
c 4.765X10sup -2
d -1.739X10sup -3
Control device basis Thermal Incinerator 70 Percent Heat
Recovery
Values of coefficients
a 3.778
b 1.775 sup 6 X10sup -2
c 1.950 sup 6 X10sup -2
d 7.185 sup 6 X10sup -2
Type of stream Halogenated
Control device basis Thermal Incinerator and Scrubber
Values of coefficients
a 5.992
b 7.800 sup 6 X10sup -2
c -2.653 sup 6 X10sup -3
d 1.455 sup 6 X10sup -3
Table 2.- Coefficients for Total Resource Effectiveness for New
Source Nonhalogenated and Halogenated Vent Streams
Type of stream Nonhalogenated
Control device basis Flare
Values of coefficients
a 0.5276
b 0.0998
c -2.096 sup 6 X10sup -3
d -2.000 sup 6 X10sup -4
Thermal Incinerator 0 Percent Heat Recovery
Control device basis
Values of coefficients
a 0.4068
b 0.0171
c 8.664 sup 6 X10sup -3
d -3.162 sup 6 X10sup -4
Thermal Incinerator 70 Percent Heat Recovery
Control device basis
Values of coefficients
a 0.6868
b 3.209 sup 6 X10sup -3
c 3.546 sup 6 X10sup -3
d 1.306 sup 6 X10sup -2
Type of stream Halogenated
Thermal Incinerator and Scrubber
Control device basis
Values of coefficients
a 1.0895
b 1.417 sup 6 X10sup -2
c -4.822 sup 6 X10sup -4
d 2.645 sup 6 X10sup -4
(e) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent shall recalculate the TRE
index value, flow, or organic HAP concentration for each process vent, as necessary
to determine whether the vent is Group 1 or Group 2, whenever process changes are
made. Examples of process changes include, but are not limited to, changes in
production capacity, production rate, feedstock type, or catalyst type, or whenever
there is replacement, removal, or addition of recovery equipment. For purposes of
this paragraph, process changes do not include: Process upsets; unintentional,
temporary process changes; and changes that are within the range on which the
original TRE calculation was based.
(1) The TRE index value, flow rate, or organic HAP concentration shall be
recalculated based on measurements of vent stream flow rate, TOC, and organic HAP
concentrations, and heating values as specified in Sec. 63.115 (a), (b), (c), and
(d), as applicable, or on best engineering assessment of the effects of the change.
Engineering assessments shall meet the specifications in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.
(2) Where the recalculated TRE index value is less than or equal to 1.0, or
less than or equal to 4.0 but greater than 1.0, the recalculated flow rate is
greater than or equal to 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, or the recalculated
concentration is greater than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume, the owner
or operator shall submit a report as specified in Sec. 63.118 (g), (h), (i), or (j)
and shall comply with the appropriate provisions in Sec. 63.113 by the dates
specified in subpart F.
Sec. 63.116 Process vent provisions-performance test methods and procedures to
determine compliance.
(a) When a flare is used to comply with Sec. 63.113(a)(1), the owner or
operator shall comply with the flare provisions in Sec. 63.11.
(1) The compliance determination required by Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A of this
part fn 2 shall be conducted using Method 22 of part 60, appendix A, to determine
visible emissions.
fn 2 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(2) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to
determine percent emission reduction or outlet organic HAP or TOC concentration
when a flare is used.
(b) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test when any
control device specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section is
used.
(1) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44
megawatts or greater.
(2) A boiler or process heater into which the process vent stream is introduced
with the primary fuel.
(3) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which the owner or
operator:
(i) 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) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR
part 266 subpart H.
(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, an owner or
operator using a control device to comply with the organic HAP concentration limit
or percent reduction efficiency requirements in Sec. 63.113(a)(2) shall conduct a
performance test using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
section. The organic HAP concentration and percent reduction may be measured as
either total organic HAP or as TOC minus methane and ethane according to the
procedures specified.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, shall be used for
selection of the sampling sites.
(i) For determination of compliance with the 98 percent reduction of total
organic HAP requirement of Sec. 63.113(a)(2), sampling sites shall be located at
the inlet of the control device as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and
(c)(1)(i)(B) of this section, and at the outlet of the control device.
(A) The control device inlet sampling site shall be located after the final
product recovery device.
(B) If a process vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a
secondary fuel into a boiler or process heater with a design capacity less than 44
megawatts, selection of the location of the inlet sampling sites shall ensure the
measurement of total organic HAP or TOC (minus methane and ethane) concentrations
in all process vent streams and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the
boiler or process heater.
(ii) For determination of compliance with the 20 parts per million by volume
total organic HAP limit in Sec. 63.113(a)(2), the sampling site shall be located at
the outlet of the control device.
(2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or
2D of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(3) To determine compliance with the 20 parts per million by volume organic HAP
limit in Sec. 63.113(a)(2), the owner or operator shall use Method 18 of part 60,
appendix A to measure either TOC minus methane and ethane or total organic HAP.
Alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated according to the
applicable procedures in Method 301 of part 63, appendix A, may be used. The
following procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume
concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen:
(i) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If grab
sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately equal intervals
in time, such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
(ii) The concentration of either TOC (minus methane or ethane) or total organic
HAP shall be calculated according to paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) or (c)(3)(ii)(B) of
this section.
(A) The TOC concentration (C sub TOC) is the sum of the concentrations of the
individual components and shall be computed for each run using the following
equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub TOC Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry basis, parts per
million by volume.
C sub ji Concentration of sample components ''j'' of sample ''i'', dry basis, parts
per million by volume.
n Number of components in the sample.
x Number of samples in the sample run.
(B) The total organic HAP concentration (C sub HAP) shall be computed according
to the equation in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section except that only the
organic HAP species shall be summed. The list of organic HAP's is provided in Sec.
63.104 of subpart F of this part.
(iii) The concentration of TOC or total organic HAP shall be corrected to 3
percent oxygen.
(A) The emission rate correction factor or excess air, integrated sampling and
analysis procedures of Method 3B of part 60, appendix A shall be used to determine
the oxygen concentration (%O sub 2d). The samples shall be taken during the same
time that the TOC (minus methane or ethane) or total organic HAP samples are taken.
(B) The concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (C sub c) shall be computed
using either of the following equations: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub c Concentration of TOC or organic HAP corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry
basis, parts per million by volume.
C sub m Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or organic HAP, dry basis,
parts per million by volume.
%O sub 2d Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume.
(4) To determine compliance with the 98 percent reduction requirement of Sec.
63.113(a)(2), the owner or operator shall use Method 18 of part 60, appendix A;
alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated according to the
applicable procedures in Method 301 of part 63, appendix A, may be used. The
following procedures shall be used to calculate percent reduction efficiency:
(i) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If grab
sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately equal intervals
in time such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
(ii) The mass rate of either TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total organic
HAP (E sub i, E sub o) shall be computed.
(A) The following equations shall be used: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub ij, C sub oj Concentration of sample component ''j'' of the gas stream at the
inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, parts per million
by volume.
E sub i, E sub o Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total organic HAP
at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, kilogram
per hour.
M sub ij, M sub oj Molecular weight of sample component ''j'' of the gas stream at
the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Q sub i, Q sub o Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device, respectively, dry standard cubic meter per minute.
K sub 2 Constant, 2.494 x 10 sup -6 (parts per million) sup -1 (gram-mole per
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees C.
(B) Where the mass rate of TOC is being calculated, all organic compounds
(minus methane and ethane) measured by Method 18 are summed using the equation in
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section.
(C) Where the mass rate of total organic HAP is being calculated, only the
organic HAP species shall be summed using the equation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A)
of this section. The list of organic HAP's is provided in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F
of this part.
(iii) The percent reduction in TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total organic
HAP shall be calculated as follows:
R
E sub i - E sub o / E sub i
(100)
where:
R Control efficiency of control device, percent.
E sub i Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total organic HAP at the
inlet to the control device as calculated under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this
section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms organic HAP per hour.
E sub o Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total organic HAP at the
outlet of the control device, as calculated under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this
section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms organic HAP per hour.
(iv) If the process vent stream entering a boiler or process heater with a
design capacity less than 44 megawatts is introduced with the combustion air or as
a secondary fuel, the weight-percent reduction of total organic HAP or TOC (minus
methane and ethane) across the device shall be determined by comparing the TOC
(minus methane and ethane) or total organic HAP in all combusted vent streams and
primary and secondary fuels with the TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total
organic HAP exiting the combustion device, respectively.
(d) An owner or operator using a combustion device followed by a scrubber to
control halogenated process vent streams in compliance with Sec. 63.113(c) shall
conduct a performance test to determine compliance with the control efficiency or
emission limits for hydrogen halides and halogens.
(1) For an owner or operator determining compliance with the 99 percent
reduction of total hydrogen halides and halogens, sampling sites shall be located
at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber. For an owner or operator determining
compliance with the 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic meter outlet emission
limit for each hydrogen halide and halogen, the sampling site shall be located at
the outlet of the scrubber prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, Method 26 or Method
26A of part 60, appendix A, shall be used to determine the concentration, in
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to a 3 percent oxygen basis, of
hydrogen halides and halogens that may be present in the vent stream.
(3) To determine compliance with the 99 percent removal efficiency, the mass
emissions for any hydrogen halides and halogens present at the scrubber inlet shall
be summed together. The mass emissions of the compounds present at the scrubber
outlet shall be summed together. Percent reduction shall be determined by
comparison of the summed inlet and outlet measurements.
(4) To demonstrate compliance with the 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic
meter emission limit, the test results must show that the concentration of each
individual compound measured at the scrubber outlet is below 0.5 milligram per dry
standard cubic meter or is below detectable levels.
(5) The owner or operator may use any other method to demonstrate compliance if
the method or data have been validated according to the applicable procedures of
Method 301 of part 63, appendix A.
Sec. 63.117 Process vents provisions-reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
group and TRE determinations and performance tests.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the control provisions for Group 1 vent
streams in Sec. 63.113(a) or the provisions for Group 2 vent streams with a TRE
index value greater than 1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0 in Sec. 63.113(d) shall:
(1) Keep an up- to-date, readily accessible record of the data specified in
paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this section, as applicable, and
(2) Include the data in paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this section in the
Notification of Compliance Status report as specified in Sec. 63.152 of this
subpart.
(3) If any subsequent TRE determinations or performance tests are conducted
after the Notification of Compliance Status has been submitted, report the data in
paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this section in the next Periodic Report as
specified in Sec. 63.152 of this subpart.
(4) Record and report the following when using a combustion device to achieve a
98 weight percent reduction in organic HAP or an organic HAP concentration of 20
parts per million by volume, as specified in Sec. 63.113(a)(2):
(i) The parameter monitoring results for incinerators, catalytic incinerators,
boilers or process heaters specified in Table 3 of this subpart, and averaged over
the same time period of the performance testing.
Table 3.- Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
for Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of TOC Emissions
or a Limit of 20 Parts per Million by Volume
Control device Thermal Incinerator
Parameters to be monitored sup a Firebox temperature sup b
63.114(a)(1)(i)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records. sup c, 2. Record and report the firebox
temperature averaged over the full period of the performance
test-NCS. sup d, 3. Record the daily average firebox temperature
for each operating day. sup e, 4. Report all operating days when
the daily average firebox temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR. sup f
Control device Catalytic Incinerator
Parameters to be monitored sup a Temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed 63.114(a)(1)(ii)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the upstream and
downstream temperatures and the temperature difference across the
catalyst bed averaged over the full period of the performance
test-NCS., 3. Record the daily average upstream temperature and
temperature difference across catalyst bed for each operating
day. sup e, 4. Report all operating days when the daily average
upstream temperature is outside the range established in the NCS
or operating permit-PR., 5. Report all operating days when the
daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed is
outside the range established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device Boiler or Process Heater with a design heat
input capacity less than 44 megawatts and Vent Stream is not
the primary fuel
Parameters to be monitored sup a Firebox temperature sup b
63.114(a)(3)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the firebox
temperature averaged over the full period of the performance
test-NCS., 3. Record the daily average firebox temperature for
each operating day. sup e, 4. Report all operating days when the
daily average firebox temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device Flare
Parameters to be monitored sup a Presence of a flame at the
pilot light 63.114(a)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the presence of a
flame at the pilot light over the full period of the compliance
determination-NCS., 3. Record and report the duration of all
periods when the pilot flame is absent-PR.
Control device Scrubber for Halogenated Vent Streams (Note:
Controlled by a combustion device other than a flare)
Parameters to be monitored sup a pH of scrubber effluent
63.114(a)(4)(i) , and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the pH of the
scrubber effluent averaged over the full period of the
performance test-NCS., 3. Record the daily average pH of the
scrubber effluent for each operating day. sup e, 4. Report all
operating days when the daily average pH of the scrubber effluent
is outside the range established in the NCS operating permit-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Scrubber liquid and gas
flow rates 63.1149(a)(4)(ii)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the scrubber
liquid/gas ratio averaged over the full period of the performance
test-NCS., 3. Record the daily average scrubber liquid/gas ratio
for each operating day. sup e, 4. Report all operating days when
the daily average scrubber liquid/gas ratio is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device All Control Devices
Parameters to be monitored sup a Presence of flow diverted
to the atmosphere from the control device 63.114(d)(1) or
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report all periods when the
vent stream is diverted through a bypass line-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Monthly inspections of
sealed valves 63.114(d)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records that monthly inspections were performed., 2. Record
and report all monthly inspections that show the valves are not
closed or the seal has been changed-PR.
sup a Regulatory citations are listed in brackets.
sup b Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
sup c "Continuous records" is defined in Sec. 63.111 of this
Subpart.
sup d NCS Notification of Compliance Status described in Sec.
63.152 of this Subpart.
sup e The daily average is the average of all recorded parameter
values for the operating day. If all recorded values during an
operating day are within the range established in the NCS or
operating permit, a statement to this effect can be recorded
instead of the daily average.
sup f PR Periodic Reports described in Sec. 63.152 of this
Subpart.
(ii) For an incinerator, the percent reduction of organic HAP or TOC achieved
by the incinerator determined as specified in Sec. 63.116(c), or the concentration
of organic HAP or TOC (parts per million by volume, by compound) determined as
specified in Sec. 63.116(c) at the outlet of the incinerator on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(iii) For a boiler or process heater, a description of the location at which
the vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of less
than 44 megawatts and where the process vent stream is introduced with combustion
air or used as a secondary fuel and is not mixed with the primary fuel, the percent
reduction of organic HAP or TOC, or the concentration of organic HAP or TOC (parts
per million by volume, by compound) determined as specified in Sec. 63.116(c) at
the outlet of the combustion device on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(5) Record and report the following when using a flare to comply with Sec.
63.113(a)(1):
(i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air- assisted, or non-assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance
determination required by Sec. 63.116(a) of this Subpart; and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(6) Record and report the following when using a scrubber following a
combustion device to control a halogenated process vent stream:
(i) The percent reduction or scrubber outlet concentrations of hydrogen halides
and halogens as specified in Sec. 63.116(d);
(ii) The pH of the scrubber effluent; and
(iii) The scrubber liquid to gas ratio.
(7) Record and report the following when achieving and maintaining a TRE index
value greater than 1.0 but less than 4.0 as specified in Sec. 63.113(a)(3) or Sec.
63.113(d):
(i) The parameter monitoring results for absorbers, condensers, or carbon
adsorbers, as specified in Table 4 of this subpart, and averaged over the same time
period of the measurements of vent stream flow rate and concentration used in the
TRE determination (both measured while the vent stream is normally routed and
constituted), and
(ii) The measurements and calculations performed to determine the TRE index
value of the vent stream.
(8) Record and report the halogen concentration in the process vent stream
determined according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v).
Table 4.- Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
for Maintaining a TRE Index Value >1.0 and less than 4.0
Final recovery device Absorber sup b
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid 63.114(b)(1) , and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records sup c.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
2. Record and report the exit temperature of the absorbing liquid
averaged over the full period of the TRE determination-NCS sup d.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
3. Record the daily average exit temperature of the absorbing
liquid for each operating day sup e.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
4. Report all operating days when the daily average exit
temperature of the absorbing liquid is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR sup f.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit specific gravity
63.114(b)(1)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
2. Record and report the exit specific gravity averaged over the
full period of the TRE determination-NCS.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
3. Record the daily average exit specific gravity for each
operating day sup e.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
4. Report all operating days when the daily average exit specific
gravity is outside the range established in the NCS or operating
permit-PR.
Final recovery device Condenser sup d
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit (product side)
temperature 63.114(b)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
2. Record and report the exit temperature averaged over the full
period of the TRE determination-NCS.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
3. Record the daily average exit temperature for each operating
day sup e.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
4. Report all operating days when the daily average exit
temperature is outside the range established in the NCS or
operating permit-PR.
Final recovery device Carbon Adsorber sup d
Parameters to be monitored sup a Total regeneration stream
mass flow during carbon bed regeneration cycle(s) 63.114(b)(3) ,
and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Record of total regeneration stream mass flow for each carbon
bed regeneration cycle.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
2. Record and report the total regeneration stream mass flow
during each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the period of
the TRE determination-NCS.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
3. Report all carbon bed regeneration cycles when the total
regeneration stream mass flow is outside the range established in
the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Temperature of the carbon
bed after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any
cooling cycle(s) 63.114(b)(3)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records of the temperature of the carbon bed after each
regeneration.
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
2. Record and report the temperature of the carbon bed after each
regeneration during the period of the TRE determination-NCS
Parameters to be monitored sup a
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
3. Report all carbon bed regeneration cycles during which
temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration is outside the
range established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Final recovery device All Recovery Devices (as an alternative
to the above)
Parameters to be monitored sup a Concentration level or
reading indicated by an organic monitoring device at the outlet
of the recovery device
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records., 2. Record and report the concentration
level or reading averaged over the full period of the TRE
determination-NCS., 3. Record the daily average concentration
level or reading for each operating day sup e., 4. Report all
operating days when the daily average concentration level or
reading is outside the range established in the NCS or operating
permit-PR.
sup a sup 4 Regulatory citations are listed in brackets.
sup b sup 4 Alternatively, these devices may comply with the
organic monitoring device provisions listed at the end of this
table under "All Recovery Devices."
sup c sup 4 "Continuous records" is defined in Sec. 63.111 of
this Subpart.
sup d sup 4 NCS Notification of Compliance Status described in
Sec. 63.152 of this Subpart.
sup e sup 4 The daily average is the average of all values
recorded during the operating day. If all recorded values during
an operating day are within the range established in the NCS or
operating permit, a statement to this effect can be recorded
instead of the daily average.
sup f sup 4 PR Periodic Reports described in Sec. 63.152 of
this Subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of a Group 2 process vent with a TRE index greater
than 4.0 as specified in Sec. 63.113(e), shall maintain records and submit as part
of the Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.152 of this subpart,
measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed to determine the
TRE index value of the vent stream. Documentation of engineering assessments shall
include all data, assumptions, and procedures used for the engineering assessments,
as specified in Sec. 63.115(d)(1) of this subpart.
(c) Each owner or operator who elects to demonstrate that a process vent is a
Group 2 process vent based on a flow rate less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per
minute must submit to the Administrator the flow rate measurement using methods and
procedures specified in Sec. 63.115 (a) and (b) with the Notification of Compliance
Status specified in Sec. 63.152 of this subpart.
(d) Each owner or operator who elects to demonstrate that a process vent is a
Group 2 process vent based on organic HAP or TOC concentration less than 50 parts
per million by volume must submit to the Administrator an organic HAP or TOC
concentration measurement using the methods and procedures specified in Sec. 63.115
(a) and (c) with the Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.152 of
this subpart.
(e) If an owner or operator requests approval to use a control or recovery
device other than listed in Tables 3 and 4 or to monitor a parameter other than
those specified in Tables 3 and 4, the owner or operator shall submit a description
of planned reporting and recordkeeping procedures as required under Sec. 63.151(f)
or Sec. 63.152(e). The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and
recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the Implementation Plan or
permit application.
(f) For each parameter monitored according to Tables 3 or 4 of this subpart or
paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall establish a range for
the parameter that indicates proper operation of the control or recovery device. In
order to establish the range, the information required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this
subpart shall be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status or the
operating permit application.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXX.)
Sec. 63.118 Process vents provisions-Periodic reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator using a control device to comply with Sec. 63.113
(a)(1) or (a)(2) shall keep the following records up-to-date and readily
accessible:
(1) Continuous records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be
monitored under Sec. 63.114(a) and listed in Table 3 in Sec. 63.117 or specified by
the Administrator in accordance with Sec. 63.114(c) and Sec. 63.117(e), and
(2) Records of the daily average value of each continuously monitored parameter
for each operating day, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(2)(iv)
of this section.
(i) The daily average shall be calculated as the average of all values for a
monitored parameter recorded during the operating day. The average shall cover a 24-
hour period if operation is continuous, or the number of hours of operation per day
if operation is not continuous.
(ii) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating permit or
the Notification of Compliance Status. It may be from midnight to midnight or
another daily period.
(iii) If all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an operating day
are within the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or
operating permit, the owner or operator may record that all values were within the
range rather than calculating and recording a daily average for that day.
(iv) For flares, records of the duration of all periods during which the pilot
flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily averages.
(3) Continuous records of the flow indication specified under Sec.
63.114(d)(1), as well as records of the duration of all periods when the vent
stream is diverted from the control device.
(4) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec. 63.114(d)(2), a record
of continuous flow is not required. In such cases, the owner or operator shall
record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms has
been done, and shall record the duration of all periods when the seal mechanism is
broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key
type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken.
(b) Each owner or operator using a product recovery device or other means to
achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 1.0 but less than 4.0 as
specified in Sec. 63.113(a)(3) or Sec. 63.113(d) shall keep the following records
up-to-date and readily accessible:
(1) Continuous records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be
monitored under Sec. 63.114(b) and listed in Table 4 in Sec. 63.117, or specified
by the Administrator in accordance with Sec. 63.114(c) and Sec. 63.117(e) and
(2) Records of the daily average value of each continuously monitored parameter
for each operating day, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv)
of this section.
(i) The daily average shall be calculated as the average of all values for a
monitored parameter recorded during the operating day. The average shall cover a 24-
hour period if operation is continuous, or the number of hours of operation per day
if operation is not continuous.
(ii) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating permit or
the Notification of Compliance Status. It may be from midnight to midnight or
another daily period.
(iii) If all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an operating day
are within the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or
operating permit, the owner or operator may record that all values were within the
range rather than calculating and recording a daily average for that day.
(iv) If carbon adsorber regeneration stream flow and carbon bed regeneration
temperature are monitored, the records specified in Table 4 of this subpart shall
be kept instead of the daily averages.
(c) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart and who
elects to demonstrate compliance with the TRE index value greater than 4.0 under
Sec. 63.113(e) or greater than 1.0 under Sec. 63.113(a)(3) or Sec. 63.113(d) shall
keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of:
(1) Any process changes as defined in Sec. 63.115(e); and
(2) Any recalculation of the TRE index value pursuant to Sec. 63.115(e).
(d) Each owner or operator who elects to comply by maintaining a flow rate less
than 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute under Sec. 63.113(f), shall keep up-to-
date, readily accessible records of:
(1) Any process changes as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) that increase the vent
stream flow rate,
(2) Any recalculation or measurement of the flow rate pursuant to Sec.
63.115(e), and
(3) If the flow rate increases to 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute or
greater as a result of the process change, the TRE determination performed
according to the procedures of Sec. 63.115(d).
(e) Each owner or operator who elects to comply by maintaining an organic HAP
concentration less than 50 parts per million by volume organic HAP concentration
under Sec. 63.113(g) shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of:
(1) Any process changes as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) that increase the organic
HAP concentration of the process vent stream,
(2) Any recalculation or measurement of the concentration pursuant to Sec.
63.115(e), and
(3) If the organic HAP concentration increases to 50 parts per million by
volume or greater as a result of the process change, the TRE determination
performed according to the procedures of Sec. 63.115(d).
(f) Each owner or operator who elects to comply with the requirements of Sec.
63.113 shall submit to the Administrator Periodic Reports of the following recorded
information according to the schedule in Sec. 63.152 of this Subpart.
(1) Reports of all operating days when the daily average values of monitored
parameters recorded under Sec. 63.118(a) and (b) were outside the ranges
established in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit.{pg 62707}
(2) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.118(a)(3) when the vent stream is
diverted from the control device through a bypass line.
(3) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.118(a)(4) in which the seal mechanism is
broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key to unlock the bypass
line valve was checked out.
(4) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.118(a)(2)(iv) in which the pilot flame
of a flare was absent.
(5) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the parameters recorded
under Sec. 63.118(b)(2)(iv) were outside the ranges established in the Notification
of Compliance Status or operating permit.
(g) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of this Subpart, is
made that causes a Group 2 process vent to become a Group 1 process vent, the owner
or operator shall submit a report within 90 days after the process change. The
report shall include:
(1) A description of the process change;
(2) The results of the recalculation of the flow rate, organic HAP
concentration, and TRE index value required under Sec. 63.115(e) and recorded under
Sec. 63.118(c), (d), or (e) of this subpart; and
(3) A statement that the owner or operator will comply with the provisions of
Sec. 63.113 of this subpart for Group 1 process vents by the dates specified in
subpart F.
(h) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of this subpart, is
made that causes a Group 2 process vent with a TRE greater than 4.0 to become a
Group 2 process vent with a TRE less than 4.0, the owner or operator shall submit a
report within 90 days after the process change. The report shall include:
(1) A description of the process change,
(2) The results of the recalculation of the TRE index value required under Sec.
63.115(e) and recorded under Sec. 63.118(c) of this subpart, and
(3) A statement that the owner or operator will comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.113(d) of this subpart.
(i) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of this subpart, is
made that causes a Group 2 process vent with a flow rate less than 0.005 standard
cubic meter per minute to become a Group 2 process vent with a flow rate of 0.005
standard cubic meter per minute or greater and a TRE index value less than or equal
to 4.0, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 90 days after the
process change. The report shall include:
(1) A description of the process change,
(2) The results of the recalculation of the flow rate and the TRE determination
required under Sec. 63.115(e) and recorded under Sec. 63.118(d) of this subpart,
and
(3) A statement that the owner or operator will comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.113(d) of this subpart.
(j) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of this subpart, is
made that causes a Group 2 process vent with an organic HAP concentration less than
50 parts per million by volume to become a Group 2 process vent with an organic HAP
concentration of 50 parts per million by volume or greater and a TRE index value
less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 90
days after the process change. The report shall include:
(1) A description of the process change,
(2) The results of the recalculation of the organic HAP concentration and the
TRE determination required under Sec. 63.115(e) and recorded under Sec. 63.118(e)
of this subpart, and
(3) A statement that the owner or operator will comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.113(d) of this subpart.
(k) The owner or operator is not required to submit a report of a process
change if one of the conditions listed in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), or
(k)(4) of this section is met.
(1) The process change does not meet the definition of a process change in Sec.
63.115(e) of this subpart, or
(2) The vent stream flow rate is recalculated according to Sec. 63.115(e) of
this subpart and the recalculated value is less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per
minute, or
(3) The organic HAP concentration of the vent stream is recalculated according
to Sec. 63.115(e) of this subpart and the recalculated value is less than 50 parts
per million by volume, or
(4) The TRE index value is recalculated according to Sec. 63.115(e) of this
subpart and the recalculated value is greater than 4.0.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXX.)
Sec. 63.119 Storage vessel provisions-reference control technology.
(a) For each storage vessel to which this subpart applies, the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),
and (a)(4) of this section according to the schedule provisions of Sec. 63.100(f)
of subpart F of this part.
(1) For each Group 1 storage vessel (as defined in Table 5 of this subpart for
existing sources and Table 6 of this subpart for new sources) storing a liquid for
which the maximum true vapor pressure of the total organic HAP's in the liquid is
less than 76.6 kilopascals, the owner or operator shall reduce HAP emissions to the
atmosphere by operating and maintaining either a fixed roof and internal floating
roof, an external floating roof, an external floating roof converted to an internal
floating roof, or a closed vent system and control device in accordance with the
requirements in paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, or equivalent as
provided in Sec. 63.121 of this subpart.
Table 5.- Group 1 Storage Vessels at Existing Sources
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) 75 > capacity < 151
Vapor pressure sup a (kilopascals) " 13.1
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) 151 > capacity
Vapor pressure sup a (kilopascals) " 5.2
sup a Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage
temperature.
Table 6.- Group 1 Storage Vessels at New Sources
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) 38 > capacity < 151
Vapor pressure sup a (kilopascals) " 13.1
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) 151 > capacity
Vapor pressure sup a (kilopascals) " 0.7
sup a Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage
temperature.
(2) For each Group 1 storage vessel (as defined in Table 5 of this subpart for
existing sources and Table 6 of this subpart for new sources) storing a liquid for
which the maximum true vapor pressure of the total organic HAP's in the liquid is
greater than or equal to 76.6 kilopascals, the owner or operator shall operate and
maintain a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements specified
in paragraph (e) of this section, or equivalent as provided in Sec. 63.121 of this
subpart.
(*COM008*3) For each Group 2 storage vessel that is not part of an emissions
average as described in Sec. 63.150 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall
comply with the recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 63.123(a) of this subpart and is
not required to comply with any other provisions in Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 of
this subpart.
(4) For each Group 2 storage vessel that is part of an emissions average, the
owner or operator shall comply with the emissions averaging provisions in Sec.
63.150 of this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator who elects to use a fixed roof and an internal
floating roof, as defined in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart, to comply with the {pg
62708} requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
(1) The internal floating roof shall be floating on the liquid surface at all
times except when the floating roof must be supported by the leg supports during
the following periods:
(i) During the initial fill,
(ii) After the vessel has been completely emptied and degassed,
(iii) When the vessel is partially or completely emptied before being
subsequently refilled or degassed.
(2) When the floating roof is resting on the leg supports, the process of
filling, emptying, or refilling shall be continuous and shall be accomplished as
soon as possible.
(3) Each internal floating roof shall be equipped with one of the closure
devices listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section between the
wall of the storage vessel and the edge of the internal floating roof.
(i) A liquid-mounted seal as defined in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart.
(ii) A metallic shoe seal as defined in Sec. 63.111 of this Subpart.
(iii) Two seals mounted one above the other so that each forms a continuous
closure that completely covers the space between the wall of the storage vessel and
the edge of the internal floating roof. The lower seal may be vapor-mounted, but
both must be continuous seals.
(4) Automatic bleeder vents are to be closed at all times when the roof is
floating, except when the roof is being floated off or is being landed on the roof
leg supports.
(5) Each opening in a noncontact internal floating roof except for automatic
bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and the rim space vents is to provide a
projection below the liquid surface.
(6) Each internal floating roof shall meet the specifications listed in
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(vi) of this section.
(i) Each opening in the internal floating roof except for leg sleeves,
automatic bleeder vents, rim space vents, column wells, ladder wells, sample wells,
and stub drains shall be equipped with a cover or lid. The cover or lid shall be
equipped with a gasket.
(ii) Each penetration of the internal floating roof for the purposes of
sampling shall be a sample well. Each sample well shall have a slit fabric cover
that covers at least 90 percent of the opening.
(iii) Each automatic bleeder vent shall be gasketed.
(iv) Rim space vents shall be gasketed.
(v) Each penetration of the internal floating roof that allows for passage of a
ladder shall have a gasketed sliding cover.
(vi) Each penetration of the internal floating roof that allows for passage of
a column supporting the fixed roof shall have a flexible fabric sleeve seal or a
gasketed sliding cover.
(7) Each cover or lid on any opening in the internal floating roof shall be
closed (i.e., no visible gaps), except when the cover or lid must be open for
access. Covers on each access hatch and each automatic gauge float well shall be
bolted when they are closed. Rim space vents are to be set to open only when the
internal floating roof is not floating or when the pressure beneath the rim seal
exceeds the manufacturer's recommended setting.
(c) The owner or operator who elects to use an external floating roof, as
defined in Sec. 63.111 of this Subpart, to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
(1) Each external floating roof shall be equipped with a closure device between
the wall of the storage vessel and the roof edge.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, the closure
device is to consist of two seals, one above the other. The lower seal is referred
to as the primary seal and the upper seal is referred to as the secondary seal.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section, the primary
seal shall be either a metallic shoe seal or a liquid-mounted seal.
(iii) Except during the inspections required by Sec. 63.120(b) of this Subpart,
both the primary seal and the secondary seal shall completely cover the annular
space between the external floating roof and the wall of the storage vessel in a
continuous fashion.
(iv) If the external floating roof is equipped with a liquid-mounted primary
seal as of December 31, 1992, the requirement for a secondary seal in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section does not apply until the earlier of the following dates:
(A) The next time the storage vessel is emptied and degassed, or
(B) No later than 10 years after the date of promulgation.
(v) If the external floating roof is equipped with a vapor-mounted primary seal
and a secondary seal as of December 31, 1992, the requirement for a liquid-mounted
or metallic shoe primary seal in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section does not
apply until the earlier of the following dates:
(A) The next time the storage vessel is emptied and degassed, or
(B) No later than 10 years after the date of promulgation.
(2) Each external floating roof shall meet the specifications listed in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(ix).
(i) Except for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and rim space
vents, each opening in the noncontact external floating roof shall provide a
projection below the liquid surface.
(ii) Except for automatic bleeder vents, rim space vents, roof drains, and leg
sleeves, each opening in the roof is to be equipped with a gasketed cover, seal or
lid which is to be maintained in a closed position (i.e., no visible gap) at all
times except when the cover or lid must be open for access. Covers on each access
hatch and gauge float well shall be bolted when they are closed.
(iii) Automatic bleeder vents are to be closed at all times when the roof is
floating, except when the roof is being floated off or is being landed on the roof
leg supports.
(iv) Rim space vents are to be set to open only when the roof is being floated
off the roof leg supports or when the pressure beneath the rim seal exceeds the
manufacturer's recommended setting.
(v) Automatic bleeder vents and rim space vents are to be gasketed.
(vi) Each roof drain is to be provided with a slotted membrane fabric cover
that covers at least 90 percent of the area of the opening.
(vii) Each unslotted guide pole well shall have a gasketed sliding cover or a
flexible fabric sleeve seal.
(viii) Each slotted guide pole well shall have:
(A) A gasketed sliding cover or a flexible fabric sleeve seal; and
(B) A gasketed float inside the guide pole.
(ix) Each gauge hatch/sample well shall have a gasketed cover which is closed
at all times except when the hatch or well must be open for access.
(3) The external floating roof shall be floating on the liquid surface at all
times except when the floating roof must be supported by the leg supports during
the following periods:
(i) During the initial fill,
(ii) After the vessel has been completely emptied and degassed,
(iii) When the vessel is partially or completely emptied before being
subsequently refilled or degassed.
(4) When the floating roof is resting on the leg supports, the process of
filling, emptying, or refilling shall be continuous and shall be accomplished as
soon as possible.
(d) The owner or operator who elects to use an external floating roof {pg
62709} converted to an internal floating roof (i.e., fixed roof installed above
external floating roof) to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall
comply with paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(1) Comply with the requirements for internal floating roof vessels specified
in paragraphs (b) (1), (2), and (3) of this section; and
(2) Comply with the requirements for deck fittings that are specified for
external floating roof vessels in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(ix) of this
section.
(e) The owner or operator who elects to use a closed vent system and control
device, as defined in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart, to comply with the requirements
of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section.
(1) The closed vent system shall be designed to collect the vapors and gases
discharged from the storage vessel and shall be operated with no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million
by volume above background, as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A.
(2) The control device shall be designed and operated to reduce inlet emissions
by 95 percent or greater. If a flare is used as the control device, it shall meet
the specifications described in the general control device requirements of 40 CFR
63.11(b). fn 3
fn 3 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(3) The specifications and requirements listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section for control devices do not apply during periods of routine maintenance.
Periods of routine maintenance shall not exceed 72 hours per year as required by
Sec. 63.120(d)(3) of this subpart.
(4) The specifications and requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section for closed vent systems and control devices do not apply during a
control system malfunction.
Sec. 63.120 Storage vessel provisions-procedures to determine compliance.
(a) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(b) of this Subpart (storage
vessel equipped with a fixed roof and internal floating roof) or with Sec.
63.119(d) (storage vessel equipped with an external floating roof converted to an
internal floating roof), the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall visually inspect the internal floating roof,
the primary seal, and the secondary seal (if one is in service), according to the
schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
(2) For vessels equipped with a single-seal system, the owner or operator shall
perform the inspections specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Visually inspect the internal floating roof and the seal through manholes
and roof hatches on the fixed roof at least once every 12 months after initial
fill, or at least once every 12 months after the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.100(f) of subpart F of this part.
(ii) Visually inspect the internal floating roof, the seal, gaskets, slotted
membranes, and sleeve seals (if any) each time the storage vessel is emptied and
degassed, and at least once every 10 years after the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of this part.
(3) For vessels equipped with a double-seal system as specified in Sec.
63.119(b)(3)(iii) of this subpart, the owner or operator shall perform either the
inspection required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section or the inspections
required in both paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall visually inspect the internal floating roof,
the primary seal, the secondary seal, gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve seals
(if any) each time the storage vessel is emptied and degassed and at least once
every 5 years after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of
this part; or
(ii) The owner or operator shall visually inspect the internal floating roof
and the secondary seal through manholes and roof hatches on the fixed roof at least
once every 12 months after initial fill, or at least once every 12 months after the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of this part, and
(iii) Visually inspect the internal floating roof, the primary seal, the
secondary seal, gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve seals (if any) each time the
vessel is emptied and degassed and at least once every 10 years after the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of this part.
(4) If during the inspections required by paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of
this section, the internal floating roof is not resting on the surface of the
liquid inside the storage vessel and is not resting on the leg supports; or there
is liquid on the floating roof; or the seal is detached; or there are holes or
tears in the seal fabric; or there are visible gaps between the seal and the wall
of the storage vessel, the owner or operator shall repair the items or empty and
remove the storage vessel from service within 45 days. If a failure that is
detected during inspections required by paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this
section cannot be repaired within 45 days and if the vessel cannot be emptied
within 45 days, 2 extensions of up to 30 additional days each may be requested from
the Administrator. Each request for an extension shall include a description of the
failure, shall document that alternate storage capacity is unavailable, and shall
specify a schedule of actions that will ensure that the control equipment will be
repaired or the vessel will be emptied as soon as possible.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, for all the
inspections required by paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(3)(iii) of this
section, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing at least
30 days prior to the refilling of each storage vessel to afford the Administrator
the opportunity to have an observer present.
(6) If the inspection required by paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or
(a)(3)(iii) of this section is not planned and the owner or operator could not have
known about the inspection 30 days in advance of refilling the vessel, the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the refilling of
the storage vessel. Notification may be made by telephone and immediately followed
by written documentation demonstrating why the inspection was unplanned.
Alternatively, the notification including the written documentation may be made in
writing and sent so that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days prior
to refilling.
(7) If during the inspections required by paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or
(a)(3)(iii) of this section, the internal floating roof has defects, the primary
seal has holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or the seal fabric, or the
secondary seal has holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or the seal fabric,
or the gaskets no longer close off the liquid surface from the atmosphere, or the
slotted membrane has more than 10 percent open area, the owner or operator shall
repair the items as necessary so that {pg 62711} none of the conditions specified
in this paragraph exist before refilling the storage vessel with organic HAP.
(b) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(c) of this Subpart (storage
vessel equipped with an external floating roof), the owner or operator shall comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this
section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the owner or
operator shall determine the gap areas and maximum gap widths between the primary
seal and the wall of the storage vessel, and the secondary seal and the wall of the
storage vessel according to the following frequency:
(i) For an external floating roof vessel equipped with primary and secondary
seals, measurements of gaps between the vessel wall and the primary seal shall be
performed during the hydrostatic testing of the vessel or by the compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of this part, whichever occurs last, and
at least once every 5 years thereafter.
(ii) Measurements of gaps between the vessel wall and the secondary seal shall
be performed by the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F of
this part and at least once per year thereafter.
(iii) If any storage vessel ceases to store organic HAP for a period of 1 year
or more, or if the maximum true vapor pressure of the total organic HAP's in the
stored liquid falls below the appropriate values specified in Table 5 or Table 6 of
this subpart for a period of 1 year or more, measurements of gaps between the
vessel wall and the primary seal, and gaps between the vessel wall and the
secondary seal shall be performed within 90 days of the vessel being refilled with
organic HAP.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the owner or
operator shall determine gap widths and gap areas in the primary and secondary
seals (seal gaps) individually by the procedures described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Seal gaps, if any, shall be measured at one or more floating roof levels
when the roof is floating off the roof leg supports.
(ii) Seal gaps shall be measured around the entire circumference of the vessel
in each place where a 0.32 centimeter diameter uniform probe passes freely (without
forcing or binding against the seal) between the seal and the wall of the storage
vessel. The circumferential distance of each such location shall also be measured.
(iii) The total surface area of each gap described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of
this section shall be determined by using probes of various widths to measure
accurately the actual distance from the vessel wall to the seal and multiplying
each such width by its respective circumferential distance.
(3) The owner or operator shall add the gap surface area of each gap location
for the primary seal and divide the sum by the nominal diameter of the vessel. The
accumulated area of gaps between the vessel wall and the metallic shoe seal or the
liquid-mounted primary seal shall not exceed 212 square centimeters per meter of
vessel diameter and the width of any portion of any gap shall not exceed 3.81
centimeters.
(4) The owner or operator shall add the gap surface area of each gap location
for the secondary seal and divide the sum by the nominal diameter of the vessel.
The accumulated area of gaps between the vessel wall and the secondary seal shall
not exceed 21.2 square centimeters per meter of vessel diameter and the width of
any portion of any gap shall not exceed 1.27 centimeters. These seal gap
requirements may be exceeded during the measurement of primary seal gaps as
required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(5) The primary seal shall meet the additional requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(5)(ii) of this section.
(i) Where a metallic shoe seal is in use, one end of the metallic shoe shall
extend into the stored liquid and the other end shall extend a minimum vertical
distance of 61 centimeters above the stored liquid surface.
(ii) There shall be no holes, tears, or other openings in the shoe, seal
fabric, or seal envelope.
(6) The secondary seal shall meet the additional requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section.
(i) The secondary seal shall be installed above the primary seal so that it
completely covers the space between the roof edge and the vessel wall except as
provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(ii) There shall be no holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or seal
fabric.
(7) If the owner or operator determines that it is unsafe to perform the seal
gap measurements required in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section or to
inspect the vessel to determine compliance with paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of
this section because the floating roof appears to be structurally unsound and poses
an imminent or potential danger to inspecting personnel, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements in either paragraph (b)(7)(i) or (b)(7)(ii) of
this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall measure the seal gaps or inspect the storage
vessel no later than 30 days after the determination that the roof is unsafe, or
(ii) The owner or operator shall empty and remove the storage vessel from
service no later than 45 days after determining that the roof is unsafe. If the
vessel cannot be emptied within 45 days, 2 extensions of up to 30 additional days
each may be requested from the Administrator. Each extension request shall include
an explanation of why it was unsafe to perform the inspection or seal gap
measurement, shall document that alternate storage capacity is unavailable, and
shall specify a schedule of actions that will ensure that the vessel will be
emptied as soon as possible.
(8) The owner or operator shall repair conditions that do not meet requirements
listed in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of this section (i.e.,
failures) no later than 45 days after identification, or shall empty and remove the
storage vessel from service no later than 45 days after identification. If during
seal gap measurements required in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section or
during inspections necessary to determine compliance with paragraphs (b)(5) and
(b)(6) of this section a failure is detected that cannot be repaired within 45 days
and if the vessel cannot be emptied within 45 days, two extensions of up to 30
additional days each may be requested from the Administrator. Each extension
request shall include a description of the failure, shall document that alternate
storage capacity is unavailable, and shall specify a schedule of actions that will
ensure that the control equipment will be repaired or the vessel will be emptied as
soon as possible.
(9) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing 30 days in
advance of any gap measurements required by paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
section to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present.
(10) The owner or operator shall visually inspect the external floating roof,
the primary seal, secondary seal, and fittings each time the vessel is emptied and
degassed.
(i) If the external floating roof has defects; the primary seal has holes,
tears, or other openings in the seal or the seal fabric; or the secondary seal has
holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or the seal fabric; or the gaskets no
longer close off the liquid surface from the atmosphere; or the slotted membrane
has more than 10 percent open area, the owner or operator shall repair the items as
necessary so that none of the conditions specified in this paragraph exist before
filling or refilling the storage vessel with organic HAP.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(10)(iii) of this section, for all the
inspections required by paragraph (b)(10) of this section, the owner or operator
shall notify the Administrator in writing at least 30 days prior to filling or
refilling of each storage vessel with organic HAP to afford the Administrator the
opportunity to inspect the storage vessel prior to refilling.
(iii) If the inspection required by paragraph (b)(10) of this section is not
planned and the owner or operator could not have known about the inspection 30 days
in advance of refilling the vessel with organic HAP, the owner or operator shall
notify the Administrator at least 7 days prior to refilling of the storage vessel.
Notification may be made by telephone and immediately followed by written
documentation demonstrating why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, this
notification including the written documentation may be made in writing and sent so
that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the refilling.
(c) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(d) of this subpart (storage
vessel equipped with an external floating roof converted to an internal floating
roof), the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(e) of this subpart (storage
vessel equipped with a closed vent system and control device) using a control
device other than a flare, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall submit, as part of the Implementation Plan
required by Sec. 63.151(d) of this subpart, the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves the
required control efficiency during reasonably expected maximum loading conditions.
This documentation is to include a description of the gas stream which enters the
control device, including flow and organic HAP content under varying liquid level
conditions (dynamic and static), and a design evaluation for the control device.
(A) If the closed vent system or control device receives vapors, gases or
liquids, other than fuels, from emission points other than storage vessels subject
to this subpart, the efficiency demonstration is to include consideration of all
vapors, gases, and liquids received by the closed vent system and control device.
(B) If an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.75
seconds and a minimum temperature of 816 degrees C is used to meet the 95-percent
emission reduction requirement, documentation that those conditions exist is
sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
(C) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, for thermal
incinerators, the design evaluation shall include the autoignition temperature of
the organic HAP, the flow rate of the organic HAP emission stream, the combustion
temperature, and the residence time at the combustion temperature.
(D) For carbon adsorbers, the design evaluation shall include the affinity of
the organic HAP vapors for carbon, the amount of carbon in each bed, the number of
beds, the humidity of the feed gases, the temperature of the feed gases, the flow
rate of the organic HAP emission stream, the desorption schedule, the regeneration
stream pressure or temperature, and the flow rate of the regeneration stream. For
vacuum desorption, pressure drop shall be included.
(E) For condensers, the design evaluation shall include the final temperature
of the organic HAP vapors, the type of condenser, and the design flow rate of the
organic HAP emission stream.
(ii) A description of the parameter or parameters to be monitored to ensure
that the control device is operated and maintained in conformance with its design,
an explanation of the criteria used for selection of that parameter (or
parameters), and the frequency with which monitoring will be performed.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit, as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart, the operating range
for each monitoring parameter identified in the Implementation Plan. The specified
operating range shall represent the conditions for which the control device can
achieve the 95 percent or greater emission reduction required by Sec. 63.119(e)(2)
of this subpart.
(3) The owner or operator shall ensure that the time during which the control
device does not meet the specifications of Sec. 63.119(e)(2) due to routine
maintenance does not exceed 72 hours per year. The owner or operator shall
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this paragraph by including in each
Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart the information
specified in Sec. 63.122(g)(1) of this subpart.
(4) The owner or operator shall monitor the parameters specified in the
Notification of Compliance Status required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart or
operating permit and shall operate and maintain the closed vent system and control
device such that the monitored parameters remain within the ranges specified in the
Notification of Compliance Status.
(e) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(e) of this subpart (storage
vessel equipped with a closed vent system and control device) using a flare, the
owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through
(e)(3) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall perform the compliance determination specified
in Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part. fn 4
fn 4 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit, as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart, the information
specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance
determination required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(3) The owner or operator shall ensure that the time during which the flare
does not meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part fn 5 due
to routine maintenance does not exceed 72 hours per year. The owner or operator
shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this paragraph by including
in each Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart the information
specified in Sec. 63.122(g)(1) of this subpart.
fn 5 See Footnote 4.
(4) The owner or operator shall continue to meet the general control device
requirements specified in Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part. fn 6
fn 6 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(f) Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5) of this
section, to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.119(e) of this subpart (storage
vessel equipped with a closed vent system and control device), the owner or
operator shall inspect the closed vent system for detectable emissions of 500 {pg
62712} parts per million by volume or greater above background, and shall repair
any leaks detected.
(1) Inspections of the closed vent system shall be done during filling of the
vessel and at least once per year.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, leaks, as
indicated by an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater
above background as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or by
visual inspections shall be repaired as soon as practical.
(i) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(ii) Repair shall be completed no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected.
(iii) Delay of repair of a closed vent system for which leaks were detected is
allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown or
if the owner or operator determines that emissions of purged material resulting
from immediate repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result
from delay of repair.
(A) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator within 30 days if
there will be a delay in the repair of a closed vent system. The notification shall
explain why the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown or
shall indicate how emissions of purged material resulting from immediate repair
would be greater than the fugitive emissions that would likely result from delay of
repair.
(B) If an owner or operator elects to delay the repair of a closed vent system
in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the closed vent system
shall be repaired by the end of the next process unit shutdown.
(3) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as described in
Sec. 63.123(f)(4) of this subpart, as unsafe to inspect are exempt from the
inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this section if:
(i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment is unsafe to inspect
because inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as
a consequence of complying with paragraph (f) of this section; and
(ii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-inspect times.
(4) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as described in
Sec. 63.123(f)(5) of this subpart, as difficult to inspect are exempt from the
inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this section if:
(i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment cannot be inspected
without elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters above a support
surface;
(ii) The storage vessel which is equipped with the closed vent system is an
existing storage vessel within an existing source; and
(iii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment at least once every 5 years.
(5) Any parts of the closed vent system that are subject to monitoring
requirements under the equipment leak provisions of Sec. 63.172 of subpart H of
this part shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.172 of this part and are
exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.
Sec. 63.121 Storage vessel provisions-alternative means of emission limitation.
(a) Determination of equivalence to the reduction in emissions achieved by the
requirements of Sec. 63.119(b), (c), or (d) of this subpart will be evaluated
according to Sec. 63.102(b) of subpart F of this part. The determination will be
based on the application to the Administrator which shall include the information
specified in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Actual emissions tests that use full-size or scale-model storage vessels
that accurately collect and measure all organic HAP emissions from a given control
technique, and that accurately simulate wind and account for other emission
variables such as temperature and barometric pressure, or
(2) An engineering evaluation that the Administrator determines is an accurate
method of determining equivalence.
Sec. 63.122 Storage vessel provisions-reporting.
(a) For each Group 1 storage vessel, the owner or operator shall comply with
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall submit an Initial Notification as required by
Sec. 63.151(b) of this subpart.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit an Implementation Plan as required by
Sec. 63.151(d) of this subpart and shall submit as part of the Implementation Plan
the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator shall submit a Notification of Compliance Status as
required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart and shall submit as part of the
Notification of Compliance Status the information specified in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(4) The owner or operator shall submit Periodic Reports as required by Sec.
63.152(c) of this subpart and shall submit as part of the Periodic Reports the
information specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this section.
(5) The owner or operator shall submit, as applicable, other reports containing
the information specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(e) of this
subpart by using a closed vent system and a control device other than a flare shall
submit, as part of the Implementation Plan required by Sec. 63.151(d) of this
subpart, the information specified in Sec. 63.120(d)(1).
(c) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(e) of this
subpart by using a closed vent system and a control device shall submit, as part of
the Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart,
the information specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.
(1) If a control device other than a flare is used, the owner or operator shall
submit the operating range for each monitoring parameter identified in the
Notification of Compliance Status or in the operating permit.
(2) If a flare is used, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance
determination required by Sec. 63.120(e)(1) of this subpart; and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(d) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(b) of this
subpart by using a fixed roof and an internal floating roof shall submit, as part
of the Periodic Report required under Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart, the results
of each inspection conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.120(a) of this subpart in
which a failure is detected in the control equipment.
(1) For vessels for which annual inspections are required under Sec.
63.120(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this subpart,
(i) A failure is defined as any time in which the internal floating roof is not
resting on the surface of the liquid inside the storage vessel and is not resting
on the leg supports; or there is liquid on the floating roof; or the seal is
detached from the internal floating roof; {pg 62713} or there are holes, tears, or
other openings in the seal or seal fabric; or there are visible gaps between the
seal and the wall of the storage vessel.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, each Periodic
Report shall include the date of the inspection, identification of each storage
vessel in which a failure was detected, and a description of the failure. The
Periodic Report shall also describe the nature of and date the repair was made or
the date the storage vessel was emptied.
(iii) If an extension is requested in accordance with Sec. 63.120(a)(4) of this
subpart, the owner or operator shall, in the next Periodic Report, identify the
vessel; document the request for the extension and the Administrator's response to
the request; and describe the date the storage vessel was emptied and the nature of
and date the repair was made.
(2) For vessels for which inspections are required under Sec. 63.120(a)(2)(ii),
(a)(3)(i), or (a)(3)(iii) of this subpart,
(i) A failure is defined as any time in which the internal floating roof has
defects; or the primary seal has holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or the
seal fabric; or the secondary seal (if one has been installed) has holes, tears, or
other openings in the seal or the seal fabric; or the gaskets no longer close off
the liquid surfaces from the atmosphere; or the slotted membrane has more than 10
percent open area.
(ii) Each Periodic Report shall include the date of the inspection,
identification of each storage vessel in which a failure was detected, and a
description of the failure. The Periodic Report shall also describe the nature of
and date the repair was made, or the date the storage vessel was emptied.
(e) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(c) of this
subpart by using an external floating roof shall submit, as part of the next
Periodic Report required under Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart, documentation of the
results of each seal gap measurement made in accordance with Sec. 63.120(b) of this
subpart in which the requirements of Sec. 63.120(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), or (b)(6)
of this subpart are not met.
(1) Each Periodic Report shall include the date of the measurement, the raw
data obtained in the measurement, and the calculations described in Sec. 63.120(b)
(2), (3), and (4) of this subpart. The Periodic Report shall also describe the
nature of and date the repair was made, or the date the storage vessel was emptied.
(2) If an extension is requested in a Periodic Report in accordance with Sec.
63.120 (b)(7)(ii) or (b)(8) of this subpart, the owner or operator shall, in the
next Periodic Report, identify the vessel; document the request for the extension
and the Administrator's response to the request; and describe the date the vessel
was emptied and the nature of and date the repair was made.
(f) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(d) of this
subpart by using an external floating roof converted into an internal floating roof
shall comply with the reporting requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(e) of this
subpart by installing a closed vent system and control device shall submit, as part
of the next Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart, the
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section.
(1) The Periodic Report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this section for those routine maintenance operations
that would require the control device not to meet the requirements of Sec.
63.119(e)(2) of this subpart.
(i) A description of the routine maintenance that is anticipated to be
performed for the control device during the next 6 months. This description shall
include the type of maintenance necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and
lengths of maintenance periods.
(ii) A description of the routine maintenance that was performed for the
control device during the previous 6 months. This description shall include the
type of maintenance performed and the total number of hours during those 6 months
that the closed vent system and control device did not meet the requirements of
Sec. 63.119(e)(2) of this subpart due to maintenance.
(2) If a control device other than a flare is used, the Periodic Report shall
describe each occurrence when the monitored parameters were outside of the
parameter ranges documented in the Notification of Compliance Status in accordance
with Sec. 63.120(d)(2) of this subpart. The description shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Identification of the control device for which the measured parameters were
outside of the established ranges,
(ii) Cause for the measured parameters to be outside of the established ranges,
(iii) A statement of whether or not the owner or operator believes a control
system malfunction has occurred, and
(iv) Corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted.
(3) If a flare is used, the Periodic Report shall describe each occurrence when
the flare does not meet the general control device requirements specified in 40 CFR
63.11(b) of subpart A of this part fn 7 and shall include the information specified
in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (g)(3)(iv) of this section.
fn 7 The EPA will propose Subpart A in the future.
(i) Identification of the flare which does not meet the general requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part, fn 8
fn 8 See Footnote 7.
(ii) Reason the flare did not meet the general requirements specified in 40 CFR
63.11(b) of subpart A of this part, fn 9
fn 9 See Footnote 7.
(iii) A statement of whether or not the owner or operator believes a control
system malfunction has occurred, and
(iv) Corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted.
(4) If the owner or operator states that a control system malfunction has
occurred, the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (g)(4)(iii) of
this section shall also be included in the Periodic Report.
(i) Time and duration of the control system malfunction;
(ii) Nature and cause of the malfunction (if known); and
(iii) Corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted.
(5) The Periodic Report shall include the results of each annual inspection of
the closed vent system performed in accordance with Sec. 63.120(f) of this subpart
when an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above
background is measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(h) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119 (b), (c), or (d)
of this subpart shall submit, as applicable, the reports specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section.
(1) In order to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer
present, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of the refilling of a
storage vessel that has been emptied and degassed.
(i) If the storage vessel is equipped with an internal floating roof as
specified in Sec. 63.119(b) of this subpart, the notification shall meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.120 (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this subpart.
(ii) If the storage vessel is equipped with an external floating roof as
specified in Sec. 63.119(c) of this subpart, the notification shall meet the
requirements of either Sec. 63.120(b)(10)(ii) or (b)(10)(iii) of this subpart.{pg
62714}
(iii) If the storage vessel is equipped with an external floating roof
converted into an internal floating roof as specified in Sec. 63.119(d) of this
subpart, the notification shall meet the requirements of Sec. 63.120 (a)(5) and
(a)(6) of this subpart.
(2) In order to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer
present, the owner or operator of a storage vessel equipped with an external
floating roof as specified in Sec. 63.119(c) of this subpart shall notify the
Administrator of any seal gap measurements. This notification shall meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.120(b)(9) of this subpart.
(3) If an owner or operator requests an extension for emptying a storage vessel
in accordance with Sec. 63.120 (a)(4), (b)(7)(ii), or (b)(8) of this subpart, the
request shall include the information specified in Sec. 63.120 (a)(4), (b)(7)(ii),
or (b)(8) of this subpart, as applicable.
(i) If an owner or operator elects to delay the repair of a closed vent system
in accordance with Sec. 63.120(f)(2)(iii) of this subpart, the owner or operator
shall notify the Administrator in a report which shall include the information
specified in Sec. 63.120(f)(2)(iii)(A) of this subpart.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXX.)
Sec. 63.123 Storage vessel provisions- recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel shall keep
readily accessible records showing the dimensions of the storage vessel and an
analysis showing the capacity of the storage vessel. This record shall be kept as
long as the storage vessel is in operation. For each Group 2 storage vessel, the
owner or operator is not required to comply with any other provisions of Secs.
63.119 through 63.123 other than those required by this paragraph unless such
vessel is part of an emissions average as described in Sec. 63.150 of this subpart.
(b) Each owner or operator shall keep a record of all reports submitted in
accordance with Sec. 63.122 of this subpart, including the Implementation Plan,
Notification of Compliance Status, and Periodic Reports.
(c) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(b) of this
subpart shall keep a record that each inspection required by Sec. 63.120(a) of this
subpart was performed.
(d) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(c) of this
subpart shall keep records describing the results of each seal gap measurement made
in accordance with Sec. 63.120(b) of this subpart. The records shall include the
date of the measurement, the raw data obtained in the measurement, and the
calculations described in Sec. 63.120(b) (2), (3), and (4) of this subpart.
(e) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(d) of this
subpart shall keep a record that each inspection required by Sec. 63.120 (a) and
(c) of this subpart was performed.
(f) An owner or operator who elects to comply with Sec. 63.119(e) of this
subpart shall keep in a readily accessible location the records specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section.
(1) A record of the measured values of the parameters monitored in accordance
with Sec. 63.120(d)(1)(ii) and Sec. 63.120(d)(4) of this subpart.
(2) A record that each inspection required by Sec. 63.120(f) was performed.
(3) A record of the maintenance performed on the control device including the
duration of each time the control device does not meet the specifications of Sec.
63.119(e)(2) of this subpart due to maintenance. Such a record shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The first time of day and date the requirements of Sec. 63.119(e)(2) of
this subpart were not met at the beginning of maintenance, and
(ii) The first time of day and date the requirements of Sec. 63.119(e)(2) of
this subpart were met at the conclusion of maintenance.
(4) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system and control device
that are designated as unsafe to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment is
unsafe to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(5) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system and control device
that are designated as difficult to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment is
difficult to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXX.)
Secs. 63.124-63.125 Reserved.
Sec. 63.126 Transfer operations provisions-reference control technology.
(a) The owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall equip each loading rack with a vapor collection system and
control device.
(1) Each vapor collection system shall be designed and operated to collect the
organic HAP vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading, and to
route the collected HAP vapors to a control device as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(2) Each vapor collection system shall be designed and operated to prevent
organic HAP vapors collected at one loading arm from passing through another
loading arm in the rack to the atmosphere.
(3) Each vapor collection system shall be designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts
per million above {pg 62715} background, as determined by the procedures in Sec.
63.128(e).
(i) Any leak, as indicated by an instrument reading of 500 parts per million or
greater as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or as indicated
by visual inspections, shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than
15 calendar days after the leak is detected.
(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days
after the leak is detected.
(4) Whenever organic HAP emissions are vented to a control device used to
comply with the provisions of this subpart, such control device shall be operating.
(b) The owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall comply with paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) Use a control device to reduce emissions of organic HAP's by 98 weight-
percent or to an exit concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry
basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent. If a boiler or
process heater is used to comply with the percent reduction requirement, then the
vent stream shall be introduced into the flame zone of such a device.
(2) Reduce emissions of organic HAP's using a flare.
(i) The flare shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b). fn 10
fn 10 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(ii) Halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec. 63.111, shall not be vented
to a flare.
(3) Reduce emissions of organic HAP using a vapor balancing system.
(i) Each vapor balancing system shall be designed and operated to collect
organic HAP vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading, and to
route the collected HAP vapors to the storage vessel from which the liquid being
loaded originated.
(ii) Each piece of equipment in the vapor balancing system between the storage
vessel and the vapor collection system shall be designed for and operated with an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million above background as
determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.128(e). Equipment means each compressor,
pressure relief device, valve, or connector.
(A) Any leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading of 500 parts per million
or greater, as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or by visual
inspections, shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15
calendar days after the leak is detected.
(B) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 15 calendar days
after the leak is detected.
(c) For each Group 2 loading rack, the owner or operator shall maintain records
as required in Sec. 63.130(g). No other provisions of this subpart apply.
(d) If a combustion device is used to comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for a halogenated vent stream, then the vent stream shall be ducted from
the combustion device to a scrubber before it is discharged to the atmosphere. The
scrubber shall reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens, as
defined in Sec. 63.111, by 99 percent or shall reduce the outlet concentration of
each individual hydrogen halide or halogen to 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic
meter or less, whichever is less stringent.
(e) The owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack subject to this subpart
shall load organic HAP's into only tank trucks and railcars which:
(1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. Department of
Transportation pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49
CFR 173.31 for railcars; or
(2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding 12 months, as
determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.128(f). Vapor- tight means that the truck
or railcar tank will sustain a pressure change of not more than 750 pascals within
5 minutes after it is pressurized to a minimum of 4500 pascals.
(f) The owner or operator of a loading rack subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall load organic HAP's to only tank trucks or railcars equipped with
vapor collection equipment that is compatible with the loading rack's vapor
collection system.
(g) The owner or operator of a loading rack subject to this subpart shall load
organic HAP's to only tank trucks or railcars whose collection systems are
connected to the loading rack's vapor collection systems.
(h) The owner or operator of a loading rack subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall ensure that no pressure-vacuum vent in the loading rack's vapor
collection system or in the organic HAP loading equipment of each tank truck or
railcar shall begin to open during loading.
(i) Except for pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes, each valve in
the vent system that would lead the vent stream to the atmosphere, either directly
or indirectly, shall be secured closed using a car seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration, or shall be equipped with a flow indicator.
Sec. 63.127 Transfer operations provisions-monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack equipped with a combustion
device used to comply with the 98 percent organic HAP reduction or 20 parts per
million by volume outlet concentration requirements in Sec. 63.126(b)(1) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturers
specifications the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) Where an incinerator is used, a temperature monitoring device equipped with
a recorder capable of recording the temperature at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1) of this subpart is required.
(i) Where an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator is used, a
temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox in a position before any substantial heat
exchange occurs.
(ii) Where a catalytic incinerator is used, temperature monitoring devices
shall be installed in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed.
(2) Where a flare is used, a heat-sensing device, such as an ultra-violet beam
sensor or thermocouple, at the pilot light to indicate the presence of a flame is
required.
(3) Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity less
than 44 megawatts is used, a temperature monitoring device in the firebox equipped
with a recorder capable of recording the temperature at a frequency specified in
Sec. 63.130(a)(1) of this subpart is required. Any boiler or process heater in
which all vent streams are introduced with the primary fuel is exempt from this
requirement.
(4) Where a scrubber is used with an incinerator, boiler, or process heater in
the case of halogenated vent streams, the following monitoring equipment is
required for the scrubber:
(i) A pH monitoring device equipped with a recorder capable of recording the pH
at a frequency specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1)(i) of this subpart shall be installed
to monitor the pH of the scrubber effluent.
(ii) Flow meters equipped with recorders capable of recording the flow at a
frequency specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1) of this subpart shall be located at the
scrubber influent for liquid flow and the scrubber inlet for gas stream flow.
(b) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack that uses a recovery
device to comply with the 98 percent organic HAP reduction or 20 parts per million
by volume HAP concentration requirements in Sec. 63.126(b)(1) shall install either
an organic monitoring device equipped with a recorder capable of recording the
concentration level or organic monitor reading at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1) of this subpart; or the monitoring equipment specified in paragraph
(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section, depending on the type of recovery device
used. All monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
(1) Where an absorber is used, a scrubbing liquid temperature monitoring device
equipped with a recorder capable of recording temperature at a frequency specified
in Sec. 63.130(a)(1) of this subpart shall be used; and a specific gravity
monitoring device equipped with a recorder capable of recording specific gravity at
a frequency specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1)(i) of this subpart shall be used.
(2) Where a condenser is used, a condenser exit (product side) temperature
monitoring device equipped with a recorder capable of recording the temperature at
a frequency specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1) of this subpart shall be used.
(3) Where a carbon adsorber is used, an integrating regeneration stream flow
monitoring device having an accuracy of sup 8 10 percent, capable of recording the
total regeneration stream mass flow for each regeneration cycle; and a carbon bed
temperature monitoring device, capable of recording the temperature of the carbon
bed after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle.
(c) An owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack may request approval to
monitor parameters other than those listed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
The request shall be submitted according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.151(f) or Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart. Approval shall be requested if the
owner or operator:
(1) Seeks to demonstrate compliance with the standards specified in Sec.
63.126(b) with a control device other {pg 62716} than an incinerator, boiler,
process heater, flare, absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber; or
(2) Uses one of the control devices listed in paragraph (a) and (b) of this
section, but seeks to monitor a parameter other than those specified in paragraph
(a) and (b).
(d) The owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack using a vent system that
contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream flow away from the control
device used to comply with Sec. 63.126(b) shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, and equipment subject to Sec. 63.167 are not subject to this
paragraph.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that provides a
record of vent stream flow at least once every 15 minutes. The flow indicator shall
be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the vent stream
away from the control device to the atmosphere; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration.
(i) A visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at
least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed
position and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
(ii) If a car-seal has been broken or a valve position changed, the owner or
operator shall record that the vent stream has been diverted. The car-seal or lock-
and-key combination shall be returned to the secured position as soon as
practicable but not later than 15 days after the change in position is detected.
(e) The owner or operator shall establish a range that indicates proper
operation of the control device for each parameter monitored under paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) of this section. In order to establish the range, the information
required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart shall be submitted in the Notification
of Compliance Status or the operating permit application.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXX.)
Sec. 63.128 Transfer operations provisions-test methods and procedures.
(a) A performance test is required for determining compliance with the
reduction of organic HAP emissions in Sec. 63.126(b) for all control devices other
than: Vapor balancing systems; flares; and certain boilers and process heaters
listed in paragraph (c) of this section. Performance test procedures are as
follows:
(1) A performance test shall consist of three runs.
(2) All testing equipment shall be prepared and installed as specified in the
appropriate test methods.
(3) For control devices capable of continuous vapor processing, each run shall
represent at least one complete filling period, during which liquid organic HAP's
are loaded.
(4) For intermittent vapor processing systems, each run shall represent at
least one complete control device cycle.
(5) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, shall be used for
selection of sampling sites.
(i) For an owner or operator complying with the 98-percent organic HAP
reduction requirements in Sec. 63.126(b)(1), sampling sites shall be located as
specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) or (a)(5)(i)(B).
(A) Sampling sites shall be located at the inlet and outlet of the control
device, except as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B).
(B) If a vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary
fuel into a boiler or process heater with a design capacity less than 44 megawatts,
selection of the location of the inlet sampling sites shall ensure the measurement
of total organic HAP or TOC (minus methane and ethane) concentrations in all vent
streams and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the boiler or process
heater. A sampling site shall also be located at the outlet of the boiler or
process heater.
(ii) For an owner or operator complying with the 20 parts per million by volume
limit in Sec. 63.126(b)(1), the sampling site shall be located at the outlet of the
control device.
(6) The volume exhausted shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of
part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(7) For the purpose of determining compliance with the 20 parts per million by
volume limit in Sec. 63.126(b)(1), Method 18 or Method 25A of part 60, appendix A
shall be used to measure either organic compound concentration or organic HAP
concentration, except as provided in paragraph (a)(9) of this section.
(i) If Method 25A is used, the following procedures shall be used to calculate
the concentration of organic compounds (C sub T):
(A) The principal organic HAP in the vent stream shall be used as the
calibration gas.
(B) The span value for Method 25A shall be twice the concentration being
measured.
(C) Use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the high-level
calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from
the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(D) The concentration of TOC shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen using the
procedures and equation in paragraph (a)(7)(v) of this section.
(ii) If Method 18 is used to measure the concentration of organic compounds,
the organic compound concentration (C sub T) is the sum of the individual
components and shall be computed for each run using the following equation: {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub T Total concentration of organic compounds (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, parts per million by volume.
C sub j Concentration of sample components ''j'', dry basis, parts per million
by volume.
n Number of components in the sample.
(iii) If an owner or operator uses Method 18 to compute total organic HAP
concentration rather than organic compounds concentration, the equation in
paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section shall be used except that only organic HAP
species shall be summed. The list of organic HAP's is provided in Sec. 63.104 of
subpart F of this Part.
(iv) The emission rate correction factor or excess air integrated sampling and
analysis procedures of Method 3B of part 60, appendix A shall be used to determine
the oxygen concentration. The sampling site shall be the same as that of the
organic HAP or organic compound samples, and the samples shall be taken during the
same time that the organic HAP or organic compound samples are taken.
(v) The organic compound concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (C sub c)
shall be calculated using the following equation:
C sub c
(C sub T / 17.9) / (20.9 - %O sub 2d)
where:
C sub c Concentration of organic compounds corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry
basis, parts per million by volume.
C sub T Total concentration of organic compounds, dry basis, parts per million
by volume.
%0 sub 2d Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume.
(8) For the purpose of determining compliance with the 98-percent reduction
requirement in Sec. 63.126(b)(1), Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A shall be used, except as provided in paragraph (a)(9) of this section.
(i) For the purpose of determining compliance with the reduction efficiency
requirement, organic compound concentration may be measured in lieu of organic HAP
concentration.
(ii) If Method 25A is used to measure the concentration of organic compounds (C
sub T), the principal organic HAP in the vent stream shall be used as the
calibration gas.
(A) An emission testing interval shall consist of each 5- minute period during
the performance test. For each interval, a reading from each measurement shall be
recorded.
(B) The average organic compound concentration and the volume measurement shall
correspond to the same emissions testing interval.
(C) The mass at the inlet and outlet of the control device during each testing
interval shall be calculated as follows:
M sub j FKV sub sC sub T
where:
M sub j Mass of organic compounds emitted during testing interval j, kilograms.
V sub s Volume of air-vapor mixture exhausted at standard conditions, 20
degrees C and 760 millimeters mercury, standard cubic meters.
C sub T Total concentration of organic compounds (as measured) at the exhaust
vent, parts per million by volume, dry basis.
K Density, (kilograms per standard cubic meter organic HAP).
F 10sup -6 Conversion factor, (cubic meters organic HAP per cubic meters air)
(parts per million by volume)sup -1.
(D) The organic compound mass emission rates at the inlet and outlet of the
control device shall be calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where:
E sub i, E sub o Mass flow rate of organic compounds at the inlet (i) and
outlet (o) of the combustion or recovery device, kilograms per hour.
M sub ij, M sub oj Mass of organic compounds at the inlet (i) or outlet (o)
during testing interval j, kilograms.
T Total time of all testing intervals, hours.
n Number of testing intervals.
(iii) If Method 18 is used to measure organic compounds, the mass rates of
organic compounds (E sub i, E sub o) shall be computed using the following
equations: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub ij, C sub oj Concentration of sample component ''j'' of the gas stream at
the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, parts per
million by volume.
MW sub ij, MW sub oj Molecular weight of sample component ''j'' of the gas
stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Q sub i, Q sub o Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device, respectively, dry standard cubic meter per minute.
K sub 2 Constant, 2.494X10sup -6 (parts per million) sup -1 (gram-mole per
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature for
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees C.
(iv) Where Method 18 or 25A is used to measure the percent reduction in organic
compounds, the percent reduction across the control device shall be calculated as
follows:
R
E sub i - E sub o / E sub i
(100)
where:
R Control efficiency of control device, percent.
E sub i Mass emitted or mass flow rate of organic compounds at the inlet to the
combustion or recovery device as calculated under paragraph (a)(8) (ii)(D) or
(a)(8)(iii) of this section, kilogram per hour.
E sub o Mass emitted or mass flow rate of organic compounds at the outlet of
the combustion or recovery device, as calculated under paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(D) or
(a)(8)(iii) of this section, kilogram per hour.
(9) The owner or operator may use any methods or data other than Method 18 or
Method 25A, if the method or data has been validated according to Method 301 of 40
CFR part 63 of appendix A.
(b) When a flare is used to comply with Sec. 63.126(b)(2), the owner or
operator shall comply with the flare provisions in Sec. 63.11 of subpart A of this
part. fn 11
fn 11 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(1) The compliance determination required by Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A of this
part fn 12 shall be conducting using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to
determine visible emissions. The observation period shall be at least 2 hours and
shall be conducted according to Method 22.
fn 12 See Footnote 11.
(i) The compliance determination shall be conducted during at least three
complete loading cycles with a separate test run for each loading cycle. The
observation period for detecting visible emissions shall encompass each loading
cycle.
(ii) Integrated sampling to measure vent stream flow rate shall be performed
continuously during each loading cycle.
(2) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to
determine the percent emission reduction or outlet HAP or TOC concentration when a
flare is used.
(c) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test when any
device specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this section is
used.
(1) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44
megawatts or greater.
(2) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which the owner or
operator:
(i) 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) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR
part 266 subpart H.
(3) A boiler or process heater into which the vent stream is introduced with
the primary fuel.
(4) A vapor balancing system.
(d) An owner or operator using a combustion device followed by a scrubber to
control a halogenated transfer vent stream in compliance with Sec. 63.126(d) shall
conduct a performance test to determine compliance with the control efficiency or
emission limits for hydrogen halides and halogens.
(1) For an owner or operator determining compliance with the 99 percent
reduction of total hydrogen halides and halogens, sampling sites shall be located
at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber. For an owner or operator complying with
the 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic meter outlet emission limit for each
hydrogen halide and halogen, the sampling site shall be located at the outlet of
the scrubber.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, Method 26 or 26A of
part 60, appendix A, shall be used to determine the concentration in milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter, corrected to a 3 percent oxygen basis, of the hydrogen
halides and halogens that may be present in the stream.
(3) To determine compliance with the 99 percent emissions reduction limit, the
emissions for any hydrogen halides and halogens present at the scrubber inlet shall
be summed together. The mass emissions of the compounds present at the scrubber
outlet shall be summed together. Percent reduction shall be determined by
comparison of the summed inlet and outlet measurements.
(4) To demonstrate compliance with the 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic
meter emission limit, the test results must show that the concentration of each
individual compound measured at the scrubber outlet, corrected to 3 percent oxygen,
is below 0.5 milligram per dry standard cubic meter or is below detectable levels.
(5) The owner or operator may use any other method or data to demonstrate
compliance if the method or data has been validated according to the protocol of
Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
(e) The owner or operator shall inspect the vapor collection system and vapor
balancing system for detectable emissions greater than 500 parts per million.
(1) Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and visual inspections shall be
used.
(2) Inspections shall be performed only while a tank truck or railcar is being
loaded.
(3) Inspections shall be performed at the following times:
(i) By the compliance date and annually thereafter to demonstrate compliance
with Sec. 63.126(a)(3) and (4), or (b)(3); and
(ii) Before each performance test required to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.126(b)(1).
(f) For the purposes of demonstrating vapor tightness to determine compliance
with Sec. 63.126(e)(2), the following procedures and equipment shall be used:
(1) The pressure test procedures specified in Method 27 of part 60, appendix A;
and
(2) A pressure measurement device which has a precision of sup 6 2.5
millimeters of mercury and which is capable of measuring above the pressure at
which the tank truck or railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness.
Sec. 63.129 Transfer operations provisions-reporting and recordkeeping for
performance tests and notification of compliance status.
(a) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack shall:
(1) Keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the data specified in
paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this section, as applicable.
(2) Include the data specified in paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this
section in the Notification of Compliance Status report as specified in Sec. 63.152
of this subpart.
(3) If any subsequent performance tests are conducted after the Notification of
Compliance Status has been submitted, report the data in paragraphs (a)(4) through
(a)(8) of this section in the next Periodic Report as specified in Sec. 63.152 of
this subpart.
(4) Record and report the following when using a control device other than a
flare to achieve a 98 weight percent reduction in organic HAP or an organic HAP
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, as specified in Sec. 63.126(b)(1):
(i) The parameter monitoring results for thermal incinerators, catalytic
incinerators, boilers or process heaters, absorbers, condensers, or carbon
adsorbers specified in Table 7 of this subpart, recorded during the performance
test, and averaged over the time period of the performance testing.
Table 7.- Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
for Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of TOC Emissions
or a Limit of 20 Parts Per Million by Volume
Control device Thermal incinerator
Parameters to be monitored sup a Firebox temperature sup b
63.127(a)(1)(i)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the firebox temperature
averaged over the full period of the performance test-NCS sup c.,
3. Record the daily average firebox temperature for each
operating day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when the daily
average firebox temperature is outside the range established in
the NCS or operating permit-PR. sup e
Control device Catalytic incinerator
Parameters to be monitored sup a Temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed 63.127(a)(1)(ii)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the upstream and downstream
temperatures and the temperature difference across the catalyst
bed averaged over the full period of the performance test-NCS.,
3. Record the daily average upstream temperature and temperature
difference across catalyst bed for each operating day sup d., 4.
Report all operating days when the daily average upstream
temperature is outside the range established in the NCS or
operating permit-PR., 5. Report all operating days when the daily
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed is outside
the range established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device Boiler or Process Heater with a design heat
input capacity less than 44 megawatts
Parameters to be monitored sup a Firebox temperature sup b
63.127(a)(3)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the firebox temperature
averaged over the full period of the performance test-NCS., 3.
Record the daily average firebox temperature for each operating
day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when the daily average
firebox temperature is outside the range established in the NCS
or operating permit-PR.
Control device Flare
Parameters to be monitored sup a Presence of a flame at the
pilot light 63.127(a)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the presence of a flame at
the pilot light over the full period of the compliance
determination-NCS., 3. Record and report the duration of all
periods when the pilot flame is absent-PR.
Control device Scrubber for Halogenated Vent Streams (Note:
Controlled by a combustion device other than a flare)
Parameters to be monitored sup a pH of scrubber effluent
63.127(a)(4)(i) , and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)(i)., 2. Record and report the pH of the scrubber
effluent averaged over the full period of the performance test-
NCS., 3. Record the daily average pH of the scrubber effluent for
each operating day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when the
daily average pH of the scrubber effluent is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Scrubber liquid and gas
flow rates 63.127(a)(4)(ii)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)(i)., 2. Record and report the scrubber liquid/gas
ratio averaged over the full period of the performance test-NCS.,
3. Record the daily average scrubber liquid/gas ratio for each
operating day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when the daily
average scrubber liquid/gas ratio is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device Absorber sup f
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid 63.127(b)(1) , and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid averaged over the full period of the performance
test-NCS., 3. Record the daily average exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid for each operating day sup d., 4. Report all
operating days when the daily average exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid is outside the range established in the NCS or
operating permit-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit specific gravity
63.127(b)(1)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)(i)., 2. Record and report the exit specific gravity
averaged over the full period of the performance test-NCS., 3.
Record the daily average exit specific gravity for each operating
day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when the daily average
exit specific gravity is outside the range established in the NCS
or operating permit-PR.
Control device Condenser sup f
Parameters to be monitored sup a Exit (product side)
temperature 63.127(b)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)., 2. Record and report the exit temperature averaged
over the full period of the performance test-NCS., 3. Record the
daily average exit temperature for each operating day sup d., 4.
Report all operating days when the daily average exit temperature
is outside the range established in the NCS or operating permit-
PR.
Control device Carbon Adsorber sup f
Parameters to be monitored sup a Total regeneration stream
mass flow during carbon bed regeneration cycle(s) 63.127(b)(3) ,
and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records of total regeneration stream mass flow for each carbon
bed regeneration cycle., 2. Record and report the total
regeneration stream mass flow during each carbon bed regeneration
cycle during the period of the performance test-NCS., 3. Report
all carbon bed regeneration cycles when the total regeneration
stream mass flow is outside the range established in the NCS or
operating permit- PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Temperature of the carbon
bed after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any
cooling cycle(s) 63.127(b)(3)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records of the temperature of the carbon bed after each
regeneration., 2. Record and report the temperature of the carbon
bed after each regeneration during the period of the performance
test-NCS., 3. Report all the carbon bed regeneration cycles
during which the temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration
is outside the range established in the NCS or operating permit-
PR.
Control device All Recovery Devices (as an alternative to the
above)
Parameters to be monitored sup a Concentration level or
reading indicated by an organic monitoring device at the outlet
of the recovery device 63.127(b)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records monitored at a frequency specified in Sec.
63.130(a)(1)(i)., 2. Record and report the concentration level or
reading averaged over the full period of the performance test-
NCS., 3. Record the daily average concentration level or reading
for each operating day sup d., 4. Report all operating days when
the daily average concentration level or reading is outside the
range established in the NCS or operating permit-PR.
Control device All Control Devices and Vapor Balancing
Systems
Parameters to be monitored sup a Presence of flow diverted
to the atmosphere from the control device 63.127(d)(1) or
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Continuous records during loading., 2. Record and report the
duration of all periods when the vent stream is diverted through
a bypass line-PR.
Parameters to be monitored sup a Monthly inspections of
sealed valves 63.127(d)(2)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records that monthly inspections were performed., 2. Record
and report all monthly inspections that show the valves are not
sealed closed or the seal has been changed.
Control device All Vapor Collection and Vapor Balancing
Systems
Parameters to be monitored sup a Annual inspections of vapor
collection or vapor balancing systems 63.127(f)
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for monitored parameters
1. Records that annual inspections were performed., 2. Record and
report all annual inspections in which a leak is detected in the
vapor balancing or vapor collection system.
sup a Regulatory citations are listed in brackets.
sup b Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
sup c NCS Notification of Compliance Status described in Sec.
63.152 of this subpart.
sup d The daily average is the average of all recorded parameter
values for the operating day. If all recorded values during an
operating day are within the range established in the NCS or
operating permit, a statement to this effect can be recorded
instead of the daily average.
sup e PR Periodic Reports described in Sec. 63.152 of this
subpart.
sup f Alternatively, these devices may comply with the organic
monitoring device provisions listed at the end of this table
under "All Recovery Devices."
(ii) The percent reduction of organic HAP or TOC achieved by the control device
determined as specified in Sec. 63.128(a), or the concentration of organic HAP or
TOC (parts per million by volume, by compound) determined as specified in Sec.
63.128(a) at the outlet of the control device on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent
oxygen.
(iii) For performance tests having a total duration of 3 hours or greater, the
parameters shall be recorded every 15 minutes. For performance tests having a total
duration of less than 3 hours, the parameters shall be recorded every 5 minutes.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater, a description of the location at which the
vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater.
(v) For a boiler or process heater with a design capacity of 44 megawatts, or
greater, the information in paragraphs (a)(4) (i) through (iii) of this section is
not required.
(5) Record and report the following when using a flare to comply with Sec.
63.126(b)(2):
(i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance
determination required by Sec. 63.128(b) of this subpart; and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(6) Record and report the following when using a scrubber following a
combustion device to control a halogenated vent stream, as specified in Sec.
63.126(d):
(i) The percent reduction or scrubber outlet concentrations of hydrogen halides
and halogens determined according to the procedures in Sec. 63.128(d);
(ii) The parameter monitoring results for scrubbers specified in Table 7 of
this subpart, and averaged over the time period of the performance test; and
(iii) For performance tests having a total duration of 3 hours or greater, the
parameters shall be recorded every 15 minutes. For performance tests having a total
duration of less than 3 hours, the parameters shall be recorded every 5 minutes.
(7) Record and report the halogen concentration in the vent stream determined
according to the procedures as specified in Sec. 63.128(d) of this subpart.
(8) An owner or operator shall document visual inspections and Method 21 leak
readings made prior to the performance test as required in Sec. 63.128(e).
(b) If an owner or operator requests approval to use a control device other
than those listed in Table 7 or to monitor a parameter other than those specified
in Table 7, the owner or operator shall submit a description of planned reporting
and recordkeeping procedures as required under Sec. 63.151(f) or Sec. 63.152(e).
The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements
as part of the review of the Implementation Plan or permit application.
(c) For each parameter monitored according to Table 7 of this subpart or
paragraph (b) of this section, the owner or operator shall establish a range for
the parameter that indicates proper operation of the control device. In order to
establish the range, the information required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart
shall be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status or the operating permit
application.
(d) Each owner or operator shall maintain a record describing in detail the
vent system used to vent each affected transfer vent stream to a control device.
This document shall list all valves and vent pipes that could vent the stream to
the atmosphere, thereby bypassing the control device; identify which valves are
secured by car-seals or lock-and-key type configurations; and indicate the position
(open or closed) of those valves which have car seals.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXX.)
Sec. 63.130 Transfer operations provisions-periodic recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) Each owner or operator using a control device to comply with Sec. 63.126(b)
(1) or (2) of this Subpart shall keep the following up-to- date, readily accessible
records:
(1) Records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored
under Sec. 63.127, and listed in Table 7 of this subpart. Operating parameter
values shall be recorded in either of two ways specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
and (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii). In the
Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Part, the
owner or operator shall report which one of the two methods will be used.
(i) For loading cycles less than 3 hours, parameters shall be monitored every 5
minutes while the transfer vent stream is being vented to the control device. For
loading cycles 3 hours or more, parameters shall be monitored every 15 minutes
while the transfer vent stream is being vented to the control device; or
(ii) For control devices that have been operating for less than 3 hours,
parameters shall be monitored every 5 minutes while the control device is
operating. For control devices that have been operating for 3 hours or greater,
parameters shall be monitored every 15 minutes while the control device is
operating.
(iii) Owners or operators monitoring parameters listed in paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii)(A), (a)(1)(iii)(B), and (a)(1)(iii)(C) must monitor at a frequency
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i).
(A) The pH of scrubber effluent as specified in Sec. 63.127(a)(4)(i) of this
subpart.
(B) The organic concentration level or organic monitor reading at the outlet of
a recovery device as specified in Sec. 63.127(b) of this subpart.
(C) The specific gravity at the exit of an absorber as specified in Sec.
63.127(b)(1) of this subpart.
(2) Records of the daily average value of each monitored parameter for each
operating day, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(vi) of
this section.
(i) The daily average shall be calculated as the average of all values for a
monitored parameter recorded during the operating day. The average shall cover
periods of control device operation for parameters monitored at a frequency
specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1)(ii). The average shall cover periods of loading for
parameters monitored at a frequency specified in Sec. 63.130(a)(1)(i).
(ii) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating permit or
the Notification of Compliance Status. It may be from midnight to midnight or
another daily period.
(iii) If, all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an operating day
are within the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or
operating permit, the owner or operator may record that all values were within the
range rather than calculating and recording a daily average for that day.
(iv) For flares, records of the duration of all periods during which the pilot
flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily averages.
(v) If carbon adsorber regeneration stream flow and carbon bed regeneration
temperature are monitored, the records specified in Table 7 of this subpart shall
be kept instead of the daily averages.
(vi) Records of the duration of all periods when the vent stream is diverted
through bypass lines shall be kept rather than daily averages.
(3) For boilers or process heaters, records of any changes in the location at
which the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone as required under the
reduction of organic HAP emissions in Sec. 63.126(b)(1).
(b) If a vapor collection system containing valves that could divert the
emission stream away from the control device is used, each owner or operator of a
Group 1 loading rack subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.127(d) of this subpart
shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of:
(1) All periods when flow bypassing the control device is indicated if flow
indicators are installed under Sec. 63.127(d)(1), along with the continuous records
generated by the flow indicator, as listed in Table 7 of this subpart.
(2) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec. 63.127(d)(2), a record
{pg 62721} of continuous flow is not required. In such cases, the owner or operator
shall record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms
has been done, and shall record the duration of all periods when the seal mechanism
is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-
key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken, as
listed in Table 7 of this subpart.
(c) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack who uses a flare to comply
with Sec. 63.126(b)(2) of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible
records of the flare pilot flame monitoring specified under Sec. 63.127(a)(2) of
this subpart.
(d) Each owner or operator of a loading rack subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.126 shall submit to the Administrator Periodic Reports of the following
information according to the schedule in Sec. 63.152 of this subpart:
(1) Reports of all operating days when the daily average values were outside
the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit.
(2) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.130(b)(1) when the vent stream was
diverted from the control device.
(3) All times recorded under Sec. 63.130(b)(2) when maintenance is performed on
car-sealed valves, when the car seal is broken, when the bypass line valve position
is changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out.
(4) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.130(a)(2)(iv) in which the pilot flame
of the flare was absent.
(5) All periods recorded under Sec. 63.130(g) in which a leak is detected in
the vapor balancing or vapor collection system. A leak is detected as described in
Sec. 63.126(a)(3) and Sec. 63.126(b)(3)(ii).
(6) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the parameters recorded
under Sec. 63.130(a)(2)(v) were outside the ranges established in the Notification
of Compliance Status or operating permit.
(e) The owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack shall record that the
verification of DOT tank certification or Method 27 testing, required in Sec.
63.126(e), has been performed. Various methods for the record of verification can
be used, such as: A check off on a log sheet; a list of DOT serial numbers or
Method 27 data; or a position description for gate security, showing that the
security guard will not allow any trucks on site that do not have the appropriate
documentation.
(f) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 loading rack subject to the
requirements of Sec. 63.126 shall record results of all annual Method 21 tests and
visual inspections of vapor collection and vapor balancing systems, including:
(1) Date of inspection and test;
(2) Results of Method 21 monitoring, whether above or below 500 parts per
million;
(3) Description of leaks if identified by visual inspection;
(4) Date of first attempt of repair for any leak detected; and
(5) Date repair is complete for any leak detected.
(g) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 or Group 2 transfer rack shall record,
update annually, and maintain the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(3) of this section in a readily accessible location on site:
(1) An analysis demonstrating the design and actual annual throughput of the
loading rack;
(2) An analysis documenting the weight-percent organic HAP of the liquid
loaded. Examples of acceptable documentation include but are not limited to
analyses of the material and engineering calculations.
(3) An analysis documenting the annual rack weighted average HAP vapor pressure
of the loading rack.
(i) For Group 2 transfer racks that are limited to transfer of organic HAP's
with vapor pressures less than 10.3 kilopascals, documentation is required of the
organic HAP's (by compound) that are transferred. The rack weighted average vapor
pressure does not need to be calculated.
(ii) For racks transferring one or more organic HAP's with vapor pressures
greater than 10.3 kilopascals, as well as one or more organic HAP's with vapor
pressures less than 10.3 kilopascals, a rack weighted average vapor pressure shall
be documented. The rack weighted average HAP vapor pressure shall be weighted by
the annual throughput of each chemical transferred.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2060-
XXXX.)
Sec. 63.131 Process wastewater provisions-flow diagrams and tables.
(a) The flow diagrams in this section are provided as guidance for
understanding the basic interrelationships of the wastewater provisions for process
units at new and existing sources. Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this section
briefly outline the flow diagrams provided.
(1) Figure 1 provides an overview of the HON wastewater provisions,
(2) Figure 2 outlines the process for determining whether a stream meets the
HON definition of a process wastewater stream,
(3) Figure 3 summarizes Group 1 and Group 2 determinations for wastewater
streams containing Table 8 HAP's,
(4) Figure 4 summarizes Group 1 and Group 2 determinations for wastewater
streams containing Table 9 HAP's,
(5) Figure 5 summarizes compliance options for control of wastewater streams
containing Table 8 HAP's,
(6) Figure 6 summarizes compliance options for control of wastewater streams
containing Table 9 HAP's,
(7) Figure 7 presents the process unit alternative compliance option for
control of wastewater streams at existing sources containing Table 9 HAP's, and
(8) Figure 8 outlines compliance options for control of residuals.
(b) Because the flow diagrams are intricately related to Table 8 and Table 9
and for easy reference, these two tables are also included in this section.
Table 8.- Organic HAP Compounds Subject to Requirements for
Process Units at New Sources
Chemical name Allyl chloride
CAS number sup a 107051
Chemical name Benzene
CAS number sup a 71432
Chemical name 1,3-Butadiene
CAS number sup a 106990
Chemical name Carbon disulfide
CAS number sup a 75150
Chemical name Carbon tetrachloride
CAS number sup a 56235
Chemical name Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
CAS number sup a 98828
Chemical name Ethylbenzene
CAS number sup a 100414
Chemical name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
CAS number sup a 75003
Chemical name Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
CAS number sup a 75343
Chemical name Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS number sup a 87683
Chemical name Hexachloroethane
CAS number sup a 67721
Chemical name Hexane
CAS number sup a 110543
Chemical name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
CAS number sup a 74839
Chemical name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
CAS number sup a 74873
Chemical name Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
CAS number sup a 71556
Chemical name Phosgene
CAS number sup a 75445
Chemical name Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
CAS number sup a 127184
Chemical name Toluene
CAS number sup a 108883
Chemical name Trichloroethylene
CAS number sup a 79016
Chemical name 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
CAS number sup a 540841
Chemical name Vinyl chloride
CAS number sup a 75014
Chemical name Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
CAS number sup a 75354
Chemical name m-Xylene
CAS number sup a 108383
Chemical name p-Xylene
CAS number sup a 106423
sup a CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Service
registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or
mixtures of compounds.
Table 9.-Organic HAP Strippability Groups and Target Removal
Efficiencies
Strippability group A
Compound name See attached list of compounds
Target removal efficiency (percent) 99
Strippability group B
Compound name See attached list of compounds
Target removal efficiency (percent) 95
Strippability group C
Compound name See attached list of compounds
Target removal efficiency (percent) 70
Stippability group A
Chemical name Acetaldehyde
CAS number sup a 75070
Chemical name Allyl chloride
CAS number sup a 107051
Chemical name Benzene
CAS number sup a 71432
Chemical name Benzyl chloride
CAS number sup a 100447
Chemical name Biphenyl
CAS number sup a 92524
Chemical name Bromoform
CAS number sup a 75252
Chemical name 1,3-Butadiene
CAS number sup a 106990
Chemical name Carbon disulfide
CAS number sup a 75150
Chemical name Carbon tetrachloride
CAS number sup a 56235
Chemical name Chlorobenzene
CAS number sup a 108907
Chemical name Chloroform
CAS number sup a 67663
Chemical name Chloroprene (2-Chloro-1,3-Butadiene)
CAS number sup a 126998
Chemical name Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
CAS number sup a 98828
Chemical name 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
CAS number sup a 106467
Chemical name 1,3-Dichloropropene
CAS number sup a 542756
Chemical name Ethylbenzene
CAS number sup a 100414
Chemical name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
CAS number sup a 75003
Chemical name Ethylene dibromide
CAS number sup a 106934
Chemical name Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
CAS number sup a 107062
Chemical name Ethylene oxide
CAS number sup a 75218
Chemical name Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
CAS number sup a 75343
Chemical name Hexachlorobenzene
CAS number sup a 118741
Chemical name Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS number sup a 87683
Chemical name Hexachloroethane
CAS number sup a 67721
Chemical name Hexane
CAS number sup a 110543
Chemical name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
CAS number sup a 74839
Chemical name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
CAS number sup a 74873
Chemical name Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
CAS number sup a 71556
Chemical name Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
CAS number sup a 78933
Chemical name Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
CAS number sup a 108101
Chemical name Methyl tert-butyl ether
CAS number sup a 1634044
Chemical name Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
CAS number sup a 75092
Chemical name Naphthalene
CAS number sup a 91203
Chemical name 2-Nitropropane
CAS number sup a 79469
Chemical name Phosgene
CAS number sup a 75445
Chemical name Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
CAS number sup a 78875
Chemical name Propylene oxide
CAS number sup a 75569
Chemical name Styrene
CAS number sup a 100425
Chemical name 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
CAS number sup a 79345
Chemical name Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
CAS number sup a 127184
Chemical name Toluene
CAS number sup a 108883
Chemical name 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
CAS number sup a 120821
Chemical name 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
CAS number sup a 79005
Chemical name Trichloroethylene
CAS number sup a 79016
Chemical name Triethylamine
CAS number sup a 121448
Chemical name 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
CAS number sup a 540841
Chemical name Vinyl acetate
CAS number sup a 108054
Chemical name Vinyl chloride
CAS number sup a 75014
Chemical name Vinylidene chloride
CAS number sup a (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
Chemical name 75354
CAS number sup a m-Xylene
Chemical name 108383
CAS number sup a o-Xylene
Chemical name 95476
CAS number sup a p-Xylene
Chemical name 106423
Stippability group B
CAS number sup a Acetonitrile
Chemical name 75058
CAS number sup a Acetophenone
Chemical name 98862
CAS number sup a Acrolein
Chemical name 107028
CAS number sup a Acrylonitrile
Chemical name 107131
CAS number sup a 2-Chloroacetophenone
Chemical name 532274
CAS number sup a Dichloroethyl ether
Chemical name 111444
CAS number sup a N,N-Dimethylaniline
Chemical name 121697
CAS number sup a 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Chemical name 51285
CAS number sup a Ethyl acrylate
Chemical name 140885
CAS number sup a Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether
Chemical name 110714
CAS number sup a Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
Chemical name 112072
CAS number sup a Isophorone
Chemical name 78591
CAS number sup a Methyl methacrylate
Chemical name 80626
CAS number sup a Nitrobenzene
Chemical name 98953
CAS number sup a Propionaldehyde
Chemical name 123386
CAS number sup a 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Chemical name 95954
Stippability group C
CAS number sup a Aniline
Chemical name 62533
CAS number sup a o-Cresol
Chemical name 95487
CAS number sup a Diethyl sulfate
Chemical name 64675
CAS number sup a 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Chemical name 119937
CAS number sup a 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Chemical name 57147
CAS number sup a Dimethyl sulfate
Chemical name 77781
CAS number sup a 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Chemical name 121142
CAS number sup a 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
Chemical name 123911
CAS number sup a Epichlorohydrin
Chemical name (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
CAS number sup a 106898
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
CAS number sup a 110496
Chemical name Diethylene glycol diethyl ether
CAS number sup a 112367
Chemical name Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS number sup a 111966
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
CAS number sup a 111159
Chemical name Methanol
CAS number sup a 67561
Chemical name o-Toluidine
CAS number sup a 95534
sup a CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Service
registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or
mixtures of compounds.
Sec. 63.132 Process wastewater provisions-general.
(a) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit at a new source shall comply
with the requirements in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section no later
than the date specified in Sec. 63.100 of subpart F of this part.
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section, or
(2) The requirements of paragraphs (c), (f), and (i) of this section.
(b) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit at an existing source shall
comply with the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section
no later than the date specified in Sec. 63.100 of subpart F of this part.
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section; or
(2) The requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of this section.
(c) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit at a new source shall
determine the average flow rate and average concentration of each HAP compound
listed in Table 8 of this Subpart for the point of generation of each process
wastewater stream generated by the process unit. Average flow rate shall be
determined according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.144(e) of this subpart.
Average concentration shall be determined according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.144(b) of this subpart. The requirements of this paragraph are illustrated
in Figure 3 of Sec. 63.131 of this subpart.
(1) A process wastewater stream shall be a Group 1 wastewater stream for Table
8 compounds if the average flow rate is 0.02 liter per minute or greater and the
average concentration of any one of the Table 8 compounds is 10 parts per million
by weight or greater.
(2) A process wastewater stream shall be a Group 2 wastewater stream for Table
8 compounds if the average flow rate is less than 0.02 liter per minute or the
average concentration for each Table 8 compound is less than 10 parts per million
by weight.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, the owner or operator
of each Group 1 stream for Table 8 compounds shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this section.
(1) The treatment requirements specified in Sec. 63.138(b) of this subpart,
(2) The requirements for waste management units specified in Secs. 63.133
through 63.137 of this subpart, and
(3) The monitoring and inspection requirements of Sec. 63.143 of this subpart.
(4) The reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Secs. 63.146 and 63.147 of
this subpart.
(5) The requirements in paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether each
stream is Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 9 compounds.
(e) The owner or operator of each Group 2 stream for Table 8 compounds shall
comply with:
(1) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Secs. 63.146 and 63.147,
respectively, of this subpart, and
(2) The requirements in paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether each
stream is Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 9 compounds.
(f) The owner or operator of SOCMI process units at new and existing sources
shall determine the average flow rate and total VOHAP average concentration for the
point of generation of each wastewater stream generated by the process unit.
Average flow rate shall be determined according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.144(e) of this subpart. Total VOHAP average concentration shall be determined
according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.144(b) of this subpart. The
requirements of this paragraph are illustrated in Figure 4 of Sec. 63.131 of this
subpart.
(1) A process wastewater stream shall be a Group 1 wastewater stream for Table
9 compounds if:
(i) The total VOHAP average concentration of the wastewater stream is greater
than or equal to 10,000 parts per million by weight, or{pg 62723}
(ii) The total VOHAP average concentration is greater than or equal to 1,000
parts per million by weight and the average flow rate is greater than or equal to
10 liters per minute.
(2) A process wastewater stream shall be a Group 2 wastewater stream for Table
9 compounds if:
(i) The total VOHAP average concentration is less than 1,000 parts per million
by weight, or
(ii) The average flow rate is less than 10 liters per minute and the total
VOHAP average concentration is less than 10,000 parts per million by weight.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, the owner or operator
of each Group 1 stream for Table 9 compounds shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section and with the requirements of
either paragraph (g)(4) or (g)(5) of this section.
(1) The requirements for waste management units specified in Secs. 63.133
through 63.137 of this subpart.
(2) The monitoring and inspection requirements of Sec. 63.143 of this subpart.
(3) The reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Secs. 63.146 and 63.147 of
this subpart.
(4) The treatment requirements specified in Sec. 63.138(c) of this subpart, or
(5) The process unit alternative specified in Sec. 63.138(d) of this subpart.
(h) The owner or operator of each Group 2 stream for Table 9 compounds shall
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Secs. 63.146 and
63.147, respectively, of this subpart.
(i) The owner or operator may elect to transfer a Group 1 wastewater stream or
residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream to an on-site treatment operation
not owned or operated by the owner or operator of the source generating the
wastewater stream or residual or to an off-site treatment operation. The owner or
operator transferring the wastewater stream or residual shall:
(1) Comply with the provisions specified in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this
subpart for each waste management unit that receives or manages a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream prior to and
during shipment or transport.
(2) Ensure that the wastewater stream or residual is ultimately treated in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.138(b) of this subpart if the stream or
residual is Group 1 for Table 8 compounds and with the requirements of Sec.
63.138(c) of this subpart if the stream or residual is Group 1 for Table 9
compounds.
(3) Include with the shipment or transport of each Group 1 wastewater stream or
residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream a notice. The notice shall state
that the wastewater stream or residual contains organic HAP's which are required to
be managed and treated in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. When the
transport is continuous (for example, discharge to a publicly-owned treatment
works), the notice shall be submitted to the treatment operator at least once per
year.
Sec. 63.133 Process wastewater provisions-wastewater tanks.
(a) For each wastewater tank that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1
wastewater stream or a residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c) through (g) of
this section and shall operate and maintain one of the following:
(1) A fixed roof and a closed vent system that routes the organic HAP vapors
vented from the wastewater tank to a control device. The fixed roof, closed vent
system, and control device shall meet the requirements specified in paragraph (b)
of this section;
(2) A fixed roof and an internal floating roof that meets the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.119(b) of this subpart;
(3) An external floating roof that meets the requirements specified in Secs.
63.119(c), 63.120(b)(5), and 63.120(b)(6) of this subpart; or
(4) An equivalent means of emission limitation. Determination of equivalence to
the reduction in emissions achieved by the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(3) of this section will be evaluated according to Sec. 63.102(b) of
subpart F of this part. The determination will be based on the application to the
Administrator which shall include the information specified in either paragraph
(a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Actual emissions tests that use full-size or scale-model wastewater tanks
that accurately collect and measure all organic HAP emissions from a given control
technique, and that accurately simulate wind and account for other emission
variables such as temperature and barometric pressure, or
(ii) An engineering evaluation that the Administrator determines is an accurate
method of determining equivalence.
(b) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the fixed roof shall meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the closed vent system and control device
shall meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
(1) The fixed- roof shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The fixed roof and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling ports, and
gauge wells) shall be designed for and operated without leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) The fixed roof and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in
accordance with methods and procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(iii) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,
covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that the wastewater
tank contains a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1
wastewater stream except when it is necessary to use the opening for wastewater
sampling, removal, or for equipment inspection, maintenance, or repair.
(2) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed, operated, and
inspected in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.139 of this subpart.
(c) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the floating roof shall be inspected according to
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.120(a)(2) and (a)(3) of this subpart.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, if the owner or
operator elects to comply with the requirements of (a)(3) of this section, seal
gaps shall be measured according to the procedures specified in Secs.
63.120(b)(2)(i) through (b)(4) and the wastewater tank shall be inspected to
determine compliance with Sec. 63.120(b)(5) and (b)(6) of this subpart.
(e) If the owner or operator determines that it is unsafe to perform the seal
gap measurements specified in Sec. 63.120 (b)(2)(i) through (b)(4) or to inspect
the wastewater tank to determine compliance with Sec. 63.120 (b)(5) and (b)(6)
because the floating roof appears to be structurally unsound and poses an imminent
or potential danger to inspecting personnel, the owner or operator shall comply
with the requirements in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall measure the seal gaps or inspect the wastewater
tank within 30 days of the determination that the floating roof is unsafe, or{pg
62724}
(2) The owner or operator shall empty and remove the wastewater tank from
service within 45 days of determining that the roof is unsafe. If the wastewater
tank cannot be emptied within 45 days, 2 extensions of up to 30 additional days
each may be requested from the Administrator. Each extension request shall include
an explanation of why it was unsafe to perform the inspection or seal gap
measurement, shall document that alternate storage capacity is unavailable, and
shall specify a schedule of actions that will ensure that the wastewater tank will
be emptied as soon as possible.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each wastewater tank
shall be inspected initially, and semi-annually thereafter, for improper work
practices and control equipment failures in accordance with Sec. 63.143 of this
subpart.
(1) For wastewater tanks, improper work practice includes, but is not limited
to, leaving open or ungasketed any access door or other opening when such door or
opening is not in use.
(2) For wastewater tanks, control equipment failure includes, but is not
limited to, the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(viii).
(i) The floating roof is not resting on either the surface of the liquid or on
the leg supports.
(ii) There is liquid on the floating roof.
(iii) A rim seal is detached from the floating roof.
(iv) There are holes, tears, or other openings in the rim seal or seal fabric
of the floating roof.
(v) There are visible gaps between the seal of an internal floating roof and
the wall of the wastewater tank.
(vi) There are gaps between the metallic shoe seal or the liquid mounted
primary seal of an external floating roof and the wall of the wastewater tank that
exceed 212 square centimeters per meter of tank diameter or the width of any
portion of any gap between the primary seal and the tank wall exceeds 3.81
centimeters.
(vii) There are gaps between the secondary seal of an external floating roof
and the wall of the wastewater tank that exceed 21.2 square centimeters per meter
of tank diameter or the width of any portion of any gap between the secondary seal
and the tank wall exceeds 1.27 centimeters.
(viii) Where a metallic shoe seal is used on an external floating roof, one end
of the metallic shoe does not extend into the stored liquid or one end of the
metallic shoe does not extend a minimum vertical distance of 61 centimeters above
the surface of the stored liquid.
(ix) A gasket, joint, lid, cover, or door is cracked, gapped, or broken.
(g) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when an improper work
practice or a control equipment failure is identified, or when an instrument
reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above background is measured
by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first efforts at repair shall be made
no later than 5 calendar days after identification, and repair shall be completed
within 45 calendar days after identification.
Sec. 63.134 Process wastewater provisions-surface impoundments.
(a) For each surface impoundment that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1
wastewater stream or a residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
this section.
(b) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain on each surface
impoundment a cover (e.g., air-supported structure or rigid cover) and a closed-
vent system that routes the organic HAP vapors vented from the surface impoundment
to a control device.
(1) The cover shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The cover and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling ports, and gauge
wells) shall be designed for and operated without leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) The cover and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in
accordance with methods and {pg 62725} procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this
subpart.
(iii) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,
covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream is in the
surface impoundment except when it is necessary to use the opening for sampling,
removal, or for equipment inspection, maintenance, or repair.
(iv) The cover shall be used at all times that a Group 1 wastewater stream or
residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream is in the surface impoundment
except during removal of treatment residuals in accordance with 40 CFR 268.4 or
closure of the surface impoundment in accordance with 40 CFR 264.228.
(2) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed, operated, and
inspected in accordance with Sec. 63.139 of this subpart.
(c) Each surface impoundment shall be inspected initially, and semi-annually
thereafter, for improper work practices and control equipment failures in
accordance with Sec. 63.143 of this subpart.
(1) For surface impoundments, improper work practice includes, but is not
limited to, leaving open or ungasketed any access hatch or other opening when such
hatch or opening is not in use.
(2) For surface impoundments, control equipment failure includes, but is not
limited to, any time a seal, gasket, joint, lid, cover, or door is cracked, gapped,
or broken.
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when an improper work
practice or a control equipment failure is identified, or when an instrument
reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above background is measured
by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first efforts at repair shall be made
no later than 5 calendar days after identification, and repair shall be completed
within 15 calendar days after identification.
Sec. 63.135 Process wastewater provisions-containers.
(a) For each container that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1 wastewater
stream or a residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section.
(b) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain a cover on each container
used to handle, transfer, or store a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed
from a Group 1 wastewater stream in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) The cover and all openings (e.g., bungs, hatches, sampling ports, and
pressure relief devices) shall be designed for and operated without leaks as
indicated by instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above
background, as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except for
pressure relief events related to safety considerations.
(2) The cover and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section in
accordance with methods and procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(3) The cover and all openings shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position
(e.g., covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream is in the
container except when it is necessary to use the opening for filling, removal,
inspection, sampling, or pressure relief events related to safety considerations.
(c) A submerged fill pipe shall be used when a container is being filled with a
Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream.
(1) The submerged fill pipe outlet shall extend to within two fill pipe
diameters of the bottom of the container while the container is being filled.
(2) The cover shall remain in place and all openings shall be maintained in a
closed, sealed position except for those openings required for the submerged fill
pipe and for venting of the container to prevent physical damage or permanent
deformation of the container or cover.
(d) During treatment of a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a
Group 1 wastewater stream, including aeration, thermal or other treatment, in a
container, whenever it is necessary for the container to be open, the container
shall be located within an enclosure with a closed-vent system that routes the
organic HAP vapors vented from the container to a control device.
(1) The enclosure and all openings (e.g., doors, hatches) shall be designed for
and operated without leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million by volume above background, as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
(2) The enclosure and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section in
accordance with methods and procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(3) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed, operated, and
inspected in accordance with Sec. 63.139 of this subpart.
(e) Each container shall be inspected initially, and semi-annually thereafter,
for improper work practices and control equipment failures in accordance with Sec.
63.143 of this subpart.
(1) For containers, improper work practice includes, but is not limited to,
leaving open or ungasketed any access hatch or other opening when such hatch or
opening is not in use.
(2) For containers, control equipment failure includes, but is not limited to,
any time a seal, gasket, joint, lid, cover, or door is cracked, gapped, or broken.
(f) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when an improper work
practice or a control equipment failure is identified, or when an instrument
reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above background is measured
by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first efforts at repair shall be made
no later than 5 calendar days after identification, and repair shall be completed
within 15 calendar days after identification.
Sec. 63.136 Process wastewater provisions-individual drain systems.
(a) For each individual drain system that receives or manages a Group 1
wastewater stream or a residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) If the owner or operator elects to comply with this paragraph, the owner or
operator shall operate and maintain on each opening in the individual drain system
a cover and closed-vent system that routes the organic vapors vented from the
individual drain system to a control device and the owner or operator shall comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) The cover shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The cover and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling ports) shall be
designed for and operated without leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million by volume above background, as determined by Method
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) The cover and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in
accordance with methods and procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(iii) The cover and all openings shall be maintained in a closed, sealed
position (e.g., covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that a
Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream is
in the drain system except when it is necessary to use the opening for sampling or
removal, or for equipment inspection, maintenance, or repair.
(2) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed, operated, and
inspected in accordance with Sec. 63.139 of this subpart.
(3) Each individual drain system shall be inspected initially, and semi-
annually thereafter, for improper work practices and control equipment failures, in
accordance with Sec. 63.143 of this subpart.
(i) For individual drain systems, improper work practice includes, but is not
limited to, leaving open or ungasketed any access hatch or other opening when such
hatch or opening is not in use.
(ii) For individual drain systems, control equipment failure includes, but is
not limited to, any time a seal, gasket, joint, lid, cover, or door is cracked,
gapped, or broken.
(4) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when an improper work
practice or a control equipment failure is identified, or when an instrument
reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above background is measured
by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first efforts at repair shall be made
no later than 5 calendar days after identification and repair shall be completed
within 15 calendar days after identification.
(c) If the owner or operator elects to comply with this paragraph, the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of
this section:
(1) Each drain shall be equipped with water seal controls, such as a p-trap or
s-trap, or a tightly sealed cap or plug. For each drain using a p-trap or s-trap,
the owner or operator shall ensure that water is maintained in the p-trap or s-
trap. For example, a flow-monitoring device indicating positive flow from a main to
a branch water line supplying a trap or water being continuously dripped into the
trap by a hose could be used to verify flow of water to the trap.
(2) Each junction box shall be equipped with a cover and, if vented, shall have
a vent pipe. Any vent pipe shall be at least 90 centimeters in length and shall not
exceed 10.2 centimeters in diameter.
(i) Junction box covers shall have a tight seal around the edge and shall be
kept in place at all times, except during inspection and maintenance.
(ii) One of the following methods shall be used to control emissions from the
junction box vent pipe to the atmosphere:
(A) Equip the junction box or lift station with a system to prevent the flow of
organic HAP vapors from the vent pipe to the atmosphere during normal operation. An
example of such a system includes use of water seal controls on the junction
box.{pg 62726}
(B) Connect the vent pipe to a closed-vent system and control device that is
designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.139 of this subpart.
(3) Each sewer line shall not be open to the atmosphere and shall be covered or
enclosed in a manner so as to have no visible gaps or cracks in joints, seals, or
other emission interfaces.
(4) Equipment used to comply with paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this
section shall be inspected as follows:
(i) Each drain using a tightly sealed cap or plug shall be visually inspected
initially, and semi-annually thereafter, to ensure caps or plugs are in place and
properly installed.
(ii) Each junction box shall be visually inspected initially, and semi-
annually thereafter, to ensure that the cover is in place and to ensure that the
cover has a tight seal around the edge.
(iii) The unburied portion of each sewer line shall be visually inspected
initially, and semi-annually thereafter, for indication of cracks or gaps that
could result in air emissions.
(5) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when a gap, or cracked
or broken seal, joint, or cover is identified, first efforts at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after identification, and repair shall be
completed within 15 calendar days after identification.{pg 62727}
Sec. 63.137 Process wastewater provisions-oil-water separators.
(a) For each oil-water separator that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1
wastewater stream or a residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section and shall operate and maintain one of the following:
(1) A fixed roof and a closed vent system that routes the organic HAP vapors
vented from the oil-water separator to a control device. The fixed roof, closed
vent system, and control device shall meet the requirements specified in paragraph
(b) of this section;
(2) A floating roof meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 60.693-2(a)(1)(i),
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). For portions of the oil-water separator
where it is infeasible to construct and operate a floating roof, such as over the
weir mechanism, the owner or operator shall operate and maintain a fixed roof,
closed vent system, and control device that meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) An equivalent means of emission limitation. Determination of equivalence to
the reduction in emissions achieved by the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section will be evaluated according to Sec. 63.102(b) of subpart F
of this part. The determination will be based on the application to the
Administrator which shall include the information specified in either paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) Actual emissions tests that use full-size or scale-model oil-water
separators that accurately collect and measure all organic HAP emissions from a
given control technique, and that accurately simulate wind and account for other
emission variables such as temperature and barometric pressure, or
(ii) An engineering evaluation that the Administrator determines is an accurate
method of determining equivalence.
(b) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, the fixed roof shall meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the closed vent system and
control device shall meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) The fixed-roof shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The fixed roof and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling ports, and
gauge wells) shall be designed for and operated without leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) The fixed roof and all openings shall be inspected initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in
accordance with methods and procedures in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(iii) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,
covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that the oil-water
separator contains a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1
wastewater stream except when it is necessary to use the opening for sampling or
removal, or for equipment inspection, maintenance, or repair.
(2) The closed- vent system and control device shall be designed, operated, and
inspected in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.139 of this subpart.
(c) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, seal gaps shall be measured according to the
procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.696(d)(1) and the schedule specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) Measurement of primary seal gaps shall be performed within 60 calendar days
after installation of the floating roof and introduction of a Group 1 wastewater
stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream and once every 5 years
thereafter.
(2) Measurement of secondary seal gaps shall be performed within 60 calendar
days after installation of the floating roof and introduction of a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream and once
every year thereafter.
(d) Each oil-water separator shall be inspected initially, and semi-annually
thereafter, for improper work practices and control equipment failures.
(1) For oil-water separators, improper work practice includes, but is not
limited to, leaving open or ungasketed any access door or other opening when such
door or opening is not in use.
(2) For oil-water separators, control equipment failure includes, but is not
limited to, the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(vii) of
this section.
(i) The floating roof is not resting on either the surface of the liquid or on
the leg supports.
(ii) There is liquid on the floating roof.
(iii) A rim seal is detached from the floating roof.
(iv) There are holes, tears, or other openings in the rim seal or seal fabric
of the floating roof.
(v) There are gaps between the primary seal and the separator wall that exceed
67 square centimeters per meter of separator wall perimeter or the width of any
portion of any gap between the primary seal and the separator wall exceeds 3.8
centimeters.
(vi) There are gaps between the secondary seal and the separator wall that
exceed 6.7 square centimeters per meter of separator wall perimeter or the width of
any portion of any gap between the secondary seal and the separator wall exceeds
1.3 centimeters.
(vii) A gasket, joint, lid, cover, or door is cracked, gapped, or broken.
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, when an improper work
practice or a control equipment failure is identified, or when an instrument
reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above background is measured
by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first efforts at repair shall be made
no later than 5 calendar days after identification, and repair shall be completed
within 15 calendar days after identification.
Sec. 63.138 Process wastewater provisions-treatment processes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, the owner or operator
of a SOCMI process unit shall comply with the requirements of this section
according to paragraph (a)(1) for SOCMI process units at new sources and paragraph
(a)(2) for SOCMI process units at existing sources.
(1) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit at a new source shall comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k)
of this section.
(2) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit at an existing source shall
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of
this section and the requirements of either paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
(b) For SOCMI process units at new sources, the owner or operator shall comply
with the following requirements for each wastewater stream that is a Group 1
wastewater stream for Table 8 compounds. The requirements of this paragraph are
illustrated in Figure 5 of Sec. 63.131 of this subpart.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the stream shall be
treated by one of the following methods:
(i) Recycle the stream to a process in accordance with the requirements
specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Once a wastewater stream is returned to
the production process, the wastewater stream is no longer subject to this section.
(ii) Treat each individual stream using a waste management unit which meets one
of the following conditions:
(A) Reduces the average concentration of each individual compound listed in
Table 8 of this subpart to less than 10 parts per million by weight as determined
by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145(b);
(B) Is a steam stripper meeting all of the design and operation specifications
of paragraph (f) of this section; or
(C) Reduces by 99 percent or more the combined mass flow rate of the Table 8
compounds as determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or (d).
(iii) Treat one Group 1 stream or a combination of one or more Group 1
wastewater streams using a treatment process which meets one of the following
conditions:
(A) Reduces by 99 percent or more the combined mass flow rate of the Table 8
compounds as determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or (d), or
(B) Is a steam stripper meeting all of the design and operation specifications
of paragraph (f) of this section, or
(C) Achieves the required mass removal of Table 8 compounds determined by the
procedure in Sec. 63.145(g). The owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance
with the required mass removal by calculating the actual mass removal according to
the procedures in Sec. 63.145(i) of this subpart. A series of treatment processes
may be used to comply with this requirement. All wastewater collection {pg 62728}
and treatment processes and waste management units located between any two
treatment processes being used to achieve the required mass removal shall comply
with paragraph (h) of this section. For example, if a combination of two steam
strippers is used to achieve the required mass removal, and a surface impoundment
is located between the two steam strippers, then the surface impoundment shall
comply with Sec. 63.134.
(2) For each treatment process or waste management unit used to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph
(h) of this section for control of air emissions.
(3) For each residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall comply with paragraph (g) of this section for control of air
emissions.
(4) The intentional or unintentional reduction in the individual HAP or total
VOHAP average concentrations of a wastewater stream by dilution of the wastewater
stream with other wastewaters or materials is not allowed for the purpose of
complying with the effluent concentration requirements specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(5) If process changes result in a Group 1 wastewater stream for Table 8
compounds meeting the requirements of either paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (b)(5)(ii) of
this section, the owner or operator need not comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for that stream.
(i) If the average flow rate at the point of generation is reduced to less than
0.02 liter per minute, or
(ii) If the average concentration at the point of generation for each Table 8
compound is reduced to less than 10 parts per million by weight.
(c) Except as provided in the process unit alternative in paragraph (d) of this
section, the owner or operator of SOCMI process units at new and existing sources
shall comply with the following requirements for each wastewater stream that is a
Group 1 wastewater stream for Table 9 compounds. The requirements of this paragraph
are illustrated in Figure 6 of Sec. 63.131 of this subpart.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(7) of this section, the
stream shall be treated by one of the following methods:
(i) Recycle the stream to a process in accordance with the requirements
specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Once a wastewater stream is returned to
the production process, the wastewater stream is no longer subject to this section.
(ii) Treat each individual stream using a waste management unit which meets one
of the following conditions:
(A) Is a steam stripper meeting all of the design and operation specifications
of paragraph (f) of this section;
(B) Reduces the total VOHAP mass flow rate of the stream by 99 percent or more
as determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or (d);
(C) Reduces the total VOHAP average concentration in the stream to a level less
than 50 parts per million by weight as determined by the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.145(b); or
(D) Reduces the total VOHAP mass flow rate of each strippability group of
organic HAP compounds in the stream by the reduction efficiency percentages
specified in Table 9 of this subpart, or more, as determined by the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or (d).
(iii) Treat the Group 1 wastewater stream and other wastewater streams that
have been aggregated or mixed for purposes of facilitating treatment using a waste
management unit which meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Is a steam stripper meeting all of the design and operation specifications
of paragraph (f) of this section; or
(B) Reduces the total VOHAP mass flow rate of the wastewater stream by 99
percent or more as determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or
(d); or
(C) Reduces the VOHAP mass flow rate of each strippability group of organic HAP
compounds in the wastewater stream by the reduction efficiency percentages given in
Table 9, or more as determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145 (c) or
(d); or
(D) Achieves the required mass removal of total VOHAP determined by the
procedures in Sec. 63.145(h) of this subpart. The owner or operator shall
demonstrate compliance with the required mass removal by calculating the actual
mass removal according to the procedures in Sec. 63.145(i) of this subpart. A
series of treatment processes may be used to comply with this requirement. All
wastewater collection and treatment processes and waste management units located
between any two treatment processes being used to achieve the required mass removal
shall comply with paragraph (h) of this section. For example, if a combination of
two steam strippers are used to achieve the required mass removal, and a surface
impoundment is located between the two steam strippers, then the surface
impoundment shall comply with Sec. 63.134 of this subpart.
(2) For each treatment process or waste management unit used to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph
(h) of this section for control of air emissions.
(3) For each residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall comply with paragraph (g) of this section for control of air
emissions.
(4) The intentional or unintentional reduction in the individual HAP or total
VOHAP average concentrations of a wastewater stream by dilution of the wastewater
stream with other wastewaters or materials is not allowed for the purpose of
complying with the effluent concentration requirements specified in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(5) If the sum, for the source, of the VOHAP mass flow rates of each Group 1
wastewater stream for Table 9 compounds (as determined at each stream's point of
generation by the procedures in Sec. 63.144(c) of this subpart) is less than 1
megagram per year, the owner or operator need not comply with paragraph (c)(1) of
this section.
(6) If a Group 1 wastewater stream for Table 9 compounds is treated or managed
in treatment processes according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and
(c)(6)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator need not comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(i) The sum, for the source, of the VOHAP mass flow rates of each Group 1
wastewater stream for Table 9 compounds (as determined by the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.144(d) and in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) (A), (B), and (C) of this section) is
reduced to less than 1 megagram per year.
(A) The mass flow rate of each untreated Group 1 wastewater stream is
determined for that stream's point of generation.
(B) The mass flow rate of each Group 1 wastewater stream that is treated to
levels less stringent than those required by paragraph (c) of this section is
determined at the treatment unit outlet, but before the wastewater stream is mixed
with other wastewater streams and prior to exposure to the atmosphere.
(C) The mass flow rate of each Group 1 wastewater stream treated to the levels
required by paragraph (c) of this section is not included in the calculation of the
total source VOHAP mass flow rate.
(ii) Each waste management unit that receives, manages, or treats the
wastewater stream prior to or during treatment meets the requirements of Secs.
63.133 through 63.137 of this subpart, as applicable.
(7) If process changes result in a Group 1 wastewater stream for Table 9
compounds meeting the requirements of either paragraph (c)(7)(i) or (c)(7)(ii) of
this section, the owner or operator need not comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this
section for that stream.
(i) The total VOHAP average concentration at the point of generation is reduced
to less than 1000 parts per million by weight, or
(ii) The flow rate at the point of generation is reduced to less than 10 liters
per minute and the total VOHAP average concentration at the point of generation is
reduced to less than 10,000 parts per million by weight.
(d) As an alternative to the treatment requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section, an owner or operator may elect to treat all wastewater streams generated
within an individual SOCMI process unit at an existing source by complying with the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section. The requirements
of this Process Unit Alternative are illustrated in Figure 7 of Sec. 63.131 of this
Subpart.
(1) The owner or operator shall ensure that the total VOHAP average
concentration of each process wastewater stream exiting the process unit is less
than 10 parts per million by weight.
(2) If the total VOHAP average concentration of any individual or combined
wastewater stream, as determined at the point of generation for individual streams
or at the point following combination with other process wastewater from the
process unit and prior to exposure to the atmosphere for combined streams, is
greater than or equal to 10 parts per million by weight, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) of
this section.
(i) The wastewater stream shall be treated to achieve a total VOHAP average
concentration of less than 10 parts per million by weight as determined by the
procedures in Sec. 63.145(b) of this subpart, or
(ii) The wastewater stream shall be recycled to the process in accordance with
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. Once a wastewater stream is returned
to the production process, the wastewater stream is no longer subject to this
section.
(3) For each residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall comply with paragraph (g) of this section for control of air
emissions.
(4) For each treatment process or waste management unit that receives, manages,
or treats wastewater streams generated within the process unit, the owner or
operator shall comply with paragraph (h) of this section for control of air
emissions.
(e) If an owner or operator elects to comply with the provisions in paragraph
(b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i), (d)(2)(ii), or (g)(1) of this section to recycle to a
production process a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1
wastewater stream, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
(1) The wastewater stream or residual shall not be exposed to the atmosphere
during recycle or at the process unit, and
(2) Each waste management unit that receives, manages, or treats the wastewater
stream or residual, prior to or during recycle, shall meet the requirements of
Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this subpart, as applicable.
(f) If an owner or operator elects to comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B),
(b)(1)(iii)(B), (c)(1)(ii)(A), or (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the owner or
operator shall operate and maintain a steam stripper that meets the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this section.
(1) Minimum active column height of 5 meters,
(2) Countercurrent flow configuration with a minimum of 10 theoretical trays,
(3) Minimum steam flow rate of 0.096 kilograms of steam per liter of wastewater
feed,
(4) Minimum wastewater feed temperature of 35 degrees C,
(5) Maximum liquid loading of 39,900 liters per hour per square meter, and
(6) Water-cooled condenser with a maximum primary condenser outlet vapor
temperature of 50 degrees C.
(g) For each residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall control for air emissions by complying with paragraph (h) of this
section and by complying with one of the provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(3) of this section. The requirements of this paragraph are illustrated in
Figure 8 of Sec. 63.131 of this subpart.{pg 62729}
(1) Recycle the residual to a production process in accordance with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Once a residual is
returned to the production process, the residual is no longer subject to this
section.
(2) Return the residual to the treatment process.
(3) Treat the residual to destroy the total HAP mass flow rate by 99 percent or
greater.
(h) For each treatment process or waste management unit that receives, manages,
or treats a Group 1 wastewater stream, or residual removed from a Group 1
wastewater stream, prior to and during treatment or recycle, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this
section.
(1) If the treatment process or waste management unit is a wastewater tank,
surface impoundment, container, individual drain system, or oil-water separator,
the owner or operator shall comply with the applicable provisions in Secs. 63.133
through 63.137 of this subpart.
(2) If the treatment process or waste management unit is a properly operated
biological treatment unit which meets the mass removal requirements of paragraph
(b)(1)(iii)(C) of this section for new sources, or paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of this
section for new and existing sources, as applicable, the biological treatment unit
need not be covered and vented to a control device as required by the applicable
provisions in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this subpart; or
(3) If Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this subpart are not applicable to the
treatment process or waste management unit (for example, if the treatment process
is a steam stripper, air stripper, or thin-film evaporation unit), the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through
(h)(3)(iv) of this section.
(i) Each opening from the treatment process or waste management unit shall be
covered and vented to a closed-vent system that routes the organic vapors from the
unit to a control device designed and operated in accordance with Sec. 63.139 of
this subpart;
(ii) Each cover shall be designed and operated without leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(iii) Each cover shall be inspected initially, and annually thereafter, by the
methods specified in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(iv) When an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater
above background is measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, first
efforts of repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after identification,
and repair shall be completed within 15 calendar days after identification.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, the owner or operator
shall demonstrate by the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
section that each treatment process or waste management unit used to comply with
paragraph (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d) of this section achieves the conditions specified
in paragraph (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d) of this section, whichever is applicable.
(1) A design analysis and supporting documentation that addresses the operating
characteristics of the treatment process or waste management unit and that is based
on operation at a representative wastewater stream flow rate and a VOHAP
concentration under which it would be most difficult to demonstrate compliance; or
(2) Performance tests conducted using test methods and procedures that meet the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.145 of this subpart.
(j) If the treatment process or waste management unit has any openings (e.g.,
access doors, hatches, etc.), all such openings shall be sealed (e.g., gasketed,
latched, etc.) and kept closed at all times that a Group 1 wastewater stream, or
residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, is in the treatment process or
waste management unit, except during inspection and maintenance, and except as
provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section for properly operated biological
treatment units.
(1) Each seal, access door, and all other openings shall be checked by visual
inspections initially, and semiannually thereafter, to ensure that no cracks or
gaps occur and that openings are closed and gasketed properly.
(2) When a gap, tear, or broken seal or gasket is identified by a visual
inspection, first efforts at repair shall be no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected, and repair shall be completed within 15 calendar days after
identification.
(k) The owner or operator of a treatment process or waste management unit that
is used to comply with the provisions of this section shall monitor the unit in
accordance with the applicable requirements in Sec. 63.143 of this subpart.
(l) A treatment process, wastewater stream, or residual is in compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (b), (c), or (g) of this section, as applicable, and
is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this section provided that the
owner or operator complies with the requirements of paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (h),
(j), and (k) of this section and documents that the treatment process, wastewater
stream, or residual is in compliance with one of the regulatory requirements
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this section.
(1) The treatment process is a hazardous waste incinerator for which the owner
or operator has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O;
(2) The treatment process is an industrial furnace or boiler burning hazardous
waste for which the owner or operator:
(i) 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) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR
part 266, subpart H.
(3) The wastewater stream or residual is discharged to an underground injection
well for which the owner or operator has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR
part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 122.
Sec. 63.139 Process wastewater provisions-closed-vent systems and control devices.
(a) For each closed-vent system and control device used to comply with the
provisions in Secs. 63.133 through 63.138 of this Subpart, the owner or operator
shall operate and maintain the closed-vent system and control device in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section. Whenever
emissions are vented to a closed vent system or control device used to comply with
the provisions of this Subpart, such system or control device shall be operating.
(b) The control device shall be designed and operated in accordance with
paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of this section.
(1) An enclosed combustion device (including but not limited to a vapor
incinerator, boiler, or process heater) shall meet the conditions in paragraph
(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), or (b)(1)(iii). If a boiler or process heater is used as the
control device, then the vent stream shall be introduced into the flame zone of the
boiler or process heater.
(i) Reduce the total organic compound emissions, less methane and ethane, or
total organic HAP emissions vented to it by 95 weight percent or greater;{pg 62730}
(ii) Achieve an outlet total organic compound concentration, less methane and
ethane, or total organic HAP concentration of 20 parts per million by volume on a
dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen. The owner or operator shall use either
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any other method or data that has been
validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A; or
(iii) Provide a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760 degrees C.
(2) A vapor recovery system (including but not limited to a carbon adsorption
system or condenser) shall reduce the total organic compound emissions, less
methane and ethane, or total organic HAP emissions vented to it with an efficiency
of 95 weight percent or greater.
(3) A flare shall comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b). fn 13
fn 13 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(4) Any other control device used shall reduce the total organic compound
emissions, less methane and ethane, or total organic HAP emissions vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent or greater.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, an owner or
operator shall demonstrate that each control device achieves the appropriate
conditions specified in paragraph (b) of this section by using one of the methods
specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Performance tests conducted using the test methods and procedures specified
in Sec. 63.145 of this Subpart; or
(2) A design analysis that addresses the vent stream characteristics and
control device operating parameters specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(c)(2)(vi) of this section.
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate and shall
establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the
combustion zone residence time.
(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate and shall
establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet
and outlet.
(iii) For a boiler or process heater, the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate; shall establish
the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone
residence time; and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is
introduced into the flame zone.
(iv) For a condenser, the design analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic compound concentration
level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the
design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet.
(v) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design analysis
shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate,
relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent
stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and
capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for
carbon beds, design total regeneration stream flow over the period of each complete
carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration,
design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon.
(vi) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed
directly onsite in the control device such as a carbon canister, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed,
type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design
carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the
control device and source operating schedule.
(3) For flares, the compliance determination specified in Sec. 63.11(b) of
subpart A of this part. fn 14
fn 14 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(4) An owner or operator using any control device specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) is exempt from the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(3) of this section and from the requirements in Sec. 63.6(f) of subpart
A of this part. fn 15
fn 15 See Footnote 14.
(i) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44
megawatts or greater.
(ii) A boiler or process heater into which the emission stream is introduced
with the primary fuel.
(iii) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which the owner or
operator:
(A) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 266 subpart H, or
(B) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR
part 266 subpart H.
(d) The closed-vent system shall be designed for and operated without leaks as
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume
above background, as determined by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, the
owner or operator shall inspect the closed vent system initially, and annually
thereafter, to determine compliance with paragraph (d) of this section according to
the methods and procedures specified in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(1) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as described in
Sec. 63.147(d)(1) of this subpart, as unsafe to inspect are exempt from the
inspection requirements of paragraph (e) of this section if:
(i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment is unsafe to inspect
because inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as
a consequence of complying with paragraph (e) of this section; and
(ii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-inspect times.
(2) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as described in
Sec. 63.147(d)(2) of this subpart, as difficult to inspect are exempt from the
inspection requirements of paragraph (e) of this section if:
(i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment cannot be inspected
without elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters above a support
surface;
(ii) The waste management unit or treatment process that is controlled by the
closed vent system and control device is an existing waste management unit or
treatment process within an existing source; and
(iii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment at least once every 5 years.
(3) Any parts of the closed vent system that are subject to monitoring
requirements under the equipment leak {pg 62731} provisions of Sec. 63.172 of
subpart H of this part shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.172 of this part
and are exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
(f) Each closed-vent system and control device shall be visually inspected
initially and annually thereafter, and at other times as requested by the
Administrator. The visual inspection shall include inspection of ductwork, piping,
and connections to covers and control devices for evidence of visible defects such
as holes in ductwork or piping and loose connections.
(g) Except as provided in Sec. 63.140 of this subpart, if visible defects in
ductwork, piping, and connections to covers and control devices are observed during
an inspection, or if emissions of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above
background are measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, a first effort
to repair the closed-vent system and control device shall be made as soon as
practicable but no later than 5 calendar days after identification. Repair shall be
completed no later than 15 calendar days after identification or the visible defect
is observed.
(h) Each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a vent
stream away from the control device to the atmosphere shall comply with the
provisions of either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section. Equipment such as
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, and equipment subject to Sec.
63.167 of subpart H of this part are not subject to this paragraph.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that provides a
record of vent stream flow at least once every 15 minutes. The flow indicator shall
be installed at the entrance to any bypass line; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to ensure the valve is
maintained in the closed position and the vent stream is not diverted through the
bypass line.
(i) The owner or operator of a control device that is used to comply with the
provisions of this section shall monitor the control device in accordance with Sec.
63.143 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.140 Process wastewater provisions- delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which emissions of 500 parts per million
by volume or greater above background have been measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, or for which an improper work practice or a control equipment
failure has been identified, is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible
without a process unit shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall occur by the end of
the next process unit shutdown.
Secs. 63.141-63.142 Reserved
Sec. 63.143 Process wastewater provisions-inspections and monitoring of operations.
(a) For each wastewater tank, surface impoundment, container, individual drain
system, and oil-water separator that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall comply with the inspection requirements specified in Table 10 of
this subpart.
Table 10.-Monitoring Requirements for Waste Management Units
Tanks:
To comply with 63.133(b)(1)(ii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect fixed roof and
all openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b.
To comply with 63.133(c)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect floating roof in
accordance with Secs. 63.120(a)(2) and (a)(3)
Frequency See Sec. 63.120(a)(2) and (a)(3)
Method Visual.
To comply with 63.133(d)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Measure floating roof
seal gaps in accordance with Secs. 63.120(b)(2)(i) through
(b)(6)(ii)
Frequency
Method See Sec. 63.120(b)(2)(ii) through (b)(6)(ii)
Frequency -Primary seal gaps
Method Once every 5 years
Frequency -Secondary seal gaps
Method Annually
To comply with 63.133(e)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect wastewater tank
for failures and improper work practices
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
Surface impoundments:
To comply with 63.134(b)(1)(ii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect cover and all
openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b.
To comply with 63.134(c)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect surface
mpoundment for failures and improper work practices
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
Containers:
To comply with 63.135(b)(2)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect cover and all
openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b.
To comply with 63.135(d)(2)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect enclosure and
all openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b.
To comply with 63.135(e)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect container for
failures and improper work practices
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
Individual drain systems: sup c:
To comply with 63.136(b)(1)(ii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect cover and all
openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b.
To comply with 63.136(b)(3)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect individual drain
system for failures and improper work practices
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
To comply with 63.136(c)(1)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Verify flow of water
supply to all drains using water seals to ensure appropriate
water levels and to prevent other conditions that reduce water
seal control effectiveness
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
To comply with 63.136(c)(4)(i)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect all drains using
tightly-sealed caps or plugs to ensure caps and plugs are in
place and properly installed
Frequency
Method
To comply with 63.136(c)(4)(ii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect all junction
boxes to ensure covers are in place and have tight seals around
edges
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
To comply with 63.136(c)(4)(iii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect unburied portion
of all sewer lines for cracks and gaps
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
Oil-water separators:
To comply with 63.137(b)(1)(ii)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect fixed roof and
all openings for leaks sup a
Frequency Annually
Method Method 21 sup b
To comply with 63.137(c)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Measure floating roof
seal gaps in accordance with 40 CFR 60.696(d)(1)
Frequency
Method See 40 CFR 60.696(d)(1).
Frequency -Primary seal gaps
Method Once every 5 years
Frequency -Secondary seal gaps
Method Annually
To comply with 63.137(d)
Inspection or monitoring requirement Inspect oil-water
separator for failures and improper work practices
Frequency Semi-annually
Method Visual.
sup a Leaks are detectable emissions of 500 parts per million by
volume above background.
sup b Method 21 of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
sup c As specified in Sec. 63.136(a), the owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements of either Sec. 363.136 (b) or (c).
(b) For each waste management unit or treatment process used to comply with
Sec. 63.138(b)(1), (c)(1), or (d) of this subpart, the owner or operator shall
comply with the monitoring requirements specified in Table 11 of this subpart.
Table 11.- Monitoring Requirements for Treatment Processes
To comply with 1. Effluent total VOHAP average concentration:
63.138(c)(1)(ii)(C) 63.138(d)(2)(i)
Parameters to be monitored A. Measure effluent total VO
concentration as a surrogate for VOHAP concentration, or
Frequency Monthly
Methods Method 25D
Parameters to be monitored B. Measure effluent total VOHAP
concentration
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
To comply with 2. Effluent VOHAP concentration of each HAP:
63.138(b)(1)(ii)(A)
Parameters to be monitored Measure VOHAP concentration of
each HAP
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
To comply with 3. Percentage reduction of total VOHAP mass
flow rate: 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(B) 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(B)
Parameters to be monitored A. Measure total VO concentration
as a surrogate for VOHAP concentration in influent and effluent,
or
Frequency Monthly
Methods Method 25D
Parameters to be monitored B. Measure total VOHAP
concentration in influent and effluent
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
To comply with 4. Percent reduction of VOHAP mass flow rate
for each strippability group of HAP's: 63.138(b)(1)(ii)(C)
63.138(b)(1)(iii)(A) 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(D) 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(C)
Parameters to be monitored A. Measure VOHAP concentration of
each strippability group of HAP's in influent and effluent, or
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
Parameters to be monitored B. Measure concentrations of
speciated HAP's in influent and effluent
Frequency Monthly
Methods Any applicable method which has been validated using
section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 sup a
To comply with 5. VOHAP mass removal of HAP's in a treatment
process other than a properly operated biological treatment unit
63.138(b)(1)(iii)(C)
Parameters to be monitored A. Measure VOHAP concentration of
each HAP in influent and effluent of treatment process or
treatment process train, or
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
Parameters to be monitored B. Measure concentrations of
speciated HAP's in influent and effluent of treatment process or
treatment process train
Frequency Monthly
Methods Any applicable method which has been validated using
section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 sup a
To comply with 6. VOHAP mass removal of total HAP's in a
treatment process other than a properly operated biological
treatment unit 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(D)
Parameters to be monitored Measure total VOHAP concentration
in influent and effluent of treatment process or treatment
process train
Frequency Monthly
Methods Proposed Method 305, or any other applicable method
which has been validated using Section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301
sup a
To comply with 7. VOHAP mass removal of each or total HAP's
in a properly operated biological treatment unit
63.138(b)(1)(iii)(C) 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(D)
Parameters to be monitored Appropriate parameters may be
monitored upon approval from the Administrator in accordance with
the requirements specified in Sec. 63.143(c)
Frequency Monthly
Methods Method 304, or any other method which has been
approved by EPA during compliance demonstrations
To comply with 8. Alternative to items 1 through 7 above
Parameters to be monitored Other parameters may be monitored
upon approval from the Administrator in accordance with the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.143(d)
Frequency
Methods
To comply with 9. Design steam stripper 63.138(f)(3), (4),
(5), and (6)
Parameters to be monitored Steam flow rate
Frequency Continuously
Methods Integrating steam flow monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder
Parameters to be monitored Wastewater feed mass flow rate
Frequency Continuously
Methods Liquid flow meter installed at stripper influent and
equipped with a continuous recorder
Parameters to be monitored Wastewater feed temperature
Frequency Continuously
Methods Liquid temperature monitoring device installed at
stripper influent and equipped with a continuous recorder
Parameters to be monitored Condenser vapor outlet temperature
Frequency Continuously
Methods Temperature monitoring device installed at condenser
vapor outlet and equipped with a continuous recorder
sup a If method(s) are used to measure organic HAP concentrations
in a waste or wastewater stream, rather than measuring VOHAP
concentrations in an air stream purged from a waste or wastewater
stream, the correction factors listed in Table 13 may be used to
adjust the results to provide a measure of the volatile portion
(i.e., the VOHAP concentration) of the organic HAP's.
(c) If the owner or operator elects to comply with Item 7 in Table 11 of this
subpart, the owner or operator shall request approval to monitor appropriate
parameters that demonstrate proper operation of the biological treatment unit. The
request shall be submitted according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.146(a)(3) and in either Sec. 63.151(f) or Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart.
(d) If the owner or operator elects to comply with Item 8 in Table 11 of this
subpart, the owner or operator shall request approval to monitor parameters other
than those listed in Items 1 through 7 of Table 11. The request shall be submitted
according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.146(a)(3) and in either Sec.
63.151(f) or Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart, and shall include a description of
planned reporting and recordkeeping procedures. The Administrator will specify
appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the
Implementation Plan or permit application.
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) of this section, for
each closed vent system and control device used to comply with the requirements of
Secs. 63.133 through 63.139 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall comply
with the requirements in Sec. 63.139(e), (f), and (h) of this subpart, and with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2), or (e)(3) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the monitoring requirements
specified in Table 12 of this subpart; or
Table 12.- Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices
Control device All control devices
Monitoring equipment required 1. Flow indicator installed at
all bypass lines to the atmosphere and equipped with continuous
recorder sup b or
Parameters to be monitored 1. Presence of flow diverted from
the control device to the atmosphere or
Frequency Continuous
Monitoring equipment required 2. Valves sealed closed with
car-seal or lock-and-key configuration
Parameters to be monitored 2. Monthly inspections of sealed
valves
Frequency Monthly
Control device Thermal incinerator
Monitoring equipment required Temperature monitoring device
installed in firebox or in ductwork immediately downstream of
firebox sup a and equipped with a continuous recorder sup b
Parameters to be monitored Firebox temperature
Frequency Continuous
Control device Catalytic incinerator
Monitoring equipment required Temperature monitoring device
installed in gas stream immediately before and after catalyst bed
and equipped with a continuous recorder sup b
Parameters to be monitored Temperature upstream and
downstream of catalyst bed
Frequency Continuous
Control device Flare
Monitoring equipment required Heat sensing device installed
at the pilot light and equipped with a continuous recorder sup b
Parameters to be monitored Presence of a flame at the pilot
light
Frequency Continuous
Control device Boiler or process heater <44 megawatts and
vent stream is not mixed with the primary fuel
Monitoring equipment required Temperature monitoring device
installed in firebox sup a and equipped with continuous recorder
sup b
Parameters to be monitored Combustion temperature
Frequency Continuous
Control device Condenser
Monitoring equipment required Temperature monitoring device
installed at condenser exit and equipped with continuous recorder
sup b
Parameters to be monitored Condenser exit (product side)
temperature
Frequency Continuous
Control device Carbon adsorber (regenerative)
Monitoring equipment required Integrating regeneration stream
flow monitoring device having an accuracy of plus or minus 10
percent and equipped with a continuous recorder sup b, and
Parameters to be monitored Total regeneration stream mass
flow during carbon bed regeneration cycle(s)
Frequency Continuous
Monitoring equipment required Carbon bed temperature
monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder sup b
Parameters to be monitored Temperature of carbon bed after
regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling
cycle(s) and duration of the carbon bed steaming cycle
Frequency Continuous
Control device Carbon adsorber (non-regenerative)
Monitoring equipment required Organic compound concentration
monitoring device sup c
Parameters to be monitored Organic compound concentration of
adsorber exhaust
Frequency Daily or at intervals no greater than 20 percent of
the design carbon replacement interval, whichever is greater
sup a Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
sup b "Continuous recorder" is defined in Sec. 63.111 of this
Subpart.
sup c As an alternative to conducting this monitoring, an owner
or operator may replace the carbon in the carbon adsorption
system with fresh carbon at a regular predetermined time interval
that is less than the carbon replacement interval that is
determined by the maximum design flow rate and organic
concentration in the gas stream vented to the carbon adsorption
system.
(2) The owner or operator shall use an organic monitoring device installed at
the outlet of the control device and equipped with a continuous recorder.
Continuous recorder is defined in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart; or
(3) The owner or operator shall request approval to monitor parameters other
than those specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. The request
shall be submitted according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.146(a)(3) and
in either Sec. 63.151(f) or Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart, and shall include a
description of planned reporting and recordkeeping procedures. The Administrator
will specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of the
review of the Implementation Plan or permit application.
(4) For a boiler or process heater in which all vent streams are introduced
with primary fuel, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.139 (e), (f), and (h), but the owner or operator is exempt from the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section.
(5) For a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44
megawatts or greater, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.139 (e), (f), and (h), but the owner or operator is exempt from the
monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this
section.
(f) For each parameter monitored in accordance with paragraph (c), (d), or (e)
of this section, the owner or operator shall establish a range that indicates
proper operation of the treatment process or closed vent system and control device.
In order to establish the range, the information required in Sec. 63.152(b)(2) of
this subpart shall be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status or the
operating permit application in accordance with the requirement specified in Secs.
63.146 (b)(6)(ii)(A) and (b)(7)(iii).
(g) Monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
Sec. 63.144 Process wastewater provisions-test methods and procedures to determine
applicability.
(a) An owner or operator shall determine the annual wastewater quantity for a
wastewater stream by one of the following methods:
(1) Selecting the highest annual quantity of wastewater managed from historical
records representing the most recent 5 years of operation or, if the process unit
at the source has been in service for less than 5 years but at least 1 year, from
historical records representing the total operating life of the source;
(2) Using the maximum design capacity of the waste management unit;
(3) Using the maximum wastewater generation rate based on the maximum design
production capacity of the process unit generating the wastewater stream; or
(4) Measurements that are representative of maximum wastewater generation
rates.
(b) An owner or operator shall determine the total VOHAP average concentration
or average VOHAP concentration of each HAP for the point of generation of each
wastewater stream by one of the following methods:
(1) Knowledge of the wastewater. The owner or operator shall provide sufficient
information to document the total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP
concentration of each HAP of each wastewater stream. Examples of information that
could constitute knowledge include material balances, records of chemicals
purchases, process stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the results are
still representative of current operating practices at the process unit(s). If test
data are used, then the owner or operator shall provide documentation describing
the testing protocol and the means by which sampling variability and analytical
variability were accounted for in the determination of the total VOHAP average
concentration or average VOHAP concentration of each HAP for the wastewater stream.
(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data. The owner or operator shall provide
sufficient information to demonstrate that the bench-scale or pilot-scale test
concentration data are representative of the actual total VOHAP average
concentration or average VOHAP concentration of each HAP. The owner or operator
shall also provide documentation describing the testing protocol, and the means by
which sampling variability and analytical variability were accounted for in the
determination of total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP concentration
of each HAP for the wastewater stream.
(3) Measurements made at the point of generation or, when not feasible,
measurements made at a downstream location that are corrected to point of
generation values of the total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP
concentration of each HAP in the wastewater stream in accordance with the following
procedures:
(i) Collect a minimum of three samples from each wastewater stream which are
representative of normal flow and concentration conditions. Where feasible, samples
shall be taken from an enclosed pipe prior to the wastewater being exposed to the
atmosphere. Wastewater samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 25D.
(ii) When sampling from an enclosed pipe is not feasible, a minimum of three
representative samples shall be collected in a manner to minimize exposure of the
sample to the atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds prior to sampling.
(iii) Each wastewater sample shall be analyzed using one of the following test
methods for determining the total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP
concentration of each HAP in a wastewater stream:
(A) For total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP concentration of
each HAP, proposed Method 305 shall be used. The target components shall be
stripped from the wastewater samples using the procedures specified in proposed
Method 305 (i.e., suspended in a polyethylene glycol/water matrix, heated to 75
degrees C, purged with 6 liters per minute of gaseous nitrogen, sampled for 30
minutes, etc.). The exiting purge stream containing the target components shall be
collected and analyzed using the appropriate techniques described in proposed
Method 305. The precision and accuracy requirements of proposed Method 305 must be
met as part of the compliance requirements of this rule. Performance audit samples,
if available, shall be analyzed using the procedures specified in proposed Method
305.
The following equation shall be used to calculate the VOHAP concentration of an
individually-speciated compound in the wastewater from the proposed Method 305
result: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C sub W VOHAP concentration of the individually-speciated HAP compound in the
wastewater, parts per million by weight.
C sub C Concentration of compound in the gas stream, as measured by proposed
Method 305, parts per million by volume on a dry basis.
M sub S Mass of sample, from proposed Method 305, milligrams.
MW Molecular weight of the HAP compound, grams per gram-mole.
24.055 Ideal gas molar volume at 293 degrees Kelvin and 760 millimeters of
mercury, liters per gram-mole.
P sub i Barometric pressure at the time of sample analysis, millimeters mercury
absolute.
760 Reference or standard pressure, millimeters mercury absolute.
293 Reference or standard temperature, degrees Kelvin.
T sub i Sample gas temperature at the time of sample analysis, degrees Kelvin.
t Actual purge time, from proposed Method 305, minutes.
L Actual purge rate, from proposed Method 305, liters per minute.
10 sup 3 Conversion factor, milligrams per gram.
Total VOHAP average concentration can be determined by summing the VOHAP
concentrations of all HAP compounds in the wastewater.
(B) Method 25D of part 60, appendix A may be used instead of proposed Method
305 to measure total VO average concentration as a surrogate for total VOHAP
average concentration;
(C) A test method or results from a test method that measures organic HAP
concentrations in the wastewater, and that has been validated according to section
5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 of appendix A of this part may be used. The specific
requirement of proposed Method 305 to collect the sample into polyethylene glycol
would not be applicable. The concentrations of the individual organic HAP compounds
measured in the water may be corrected to their concentrations had they been
measured by proposed Method 305, by multiplying each concentration by the compound-
specific fraction measured factor in Table 13 of this subpart.
Table 13.- Fraction Measured (F sub m) and Fraction Emitted (F
sub e) for HAP Compounds in Wastewater Streams
Chemical Name Acetaldehyde
F sub m 0.724
F sub e 0.469
Chemical Name Acetonitrile
F sub m 0.739
F sub e 0.354
Chemical Name Acetophenone
F sub m 0.807
F sub e 0.302
Chemical Name Acrolein
F sub m 0.850
F sub e 0.445
Chemical Name Acrylonitrile
F sub m 0.875
F sub e 0.457
Chemical Name Allyl chloride
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.755
Chemical Name Aniline
F sub m 0.245
F sub e 0.194
Chemical Name Benzene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.721
Chemical Name Benzyl chloride
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.534
Chemical Name Biphenyl
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.550
Chemical Name Bromoform
F sub m 0.481
F sub e 0.568
Chemical Name 1,3-Butadiene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.888
Chemical Name Carbon disulfide
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.802
Chemical Name Carbon tetrachloride
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.832
Chemical Name 2-Chloroacetophenone
F sub m 0.841
F sub e 0.375
Chemical Name Chlorobenzene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.696
Chemical Name Chloroform
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.699
Chemical Name Chloroprene (2-Chloro-1,3-Butadiene)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.604
Chemical Name o-Cresol
F sub m 0.119
F sub e 0.189
Chemical Name Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.777
Chemical Name 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.684
Chemical Name Dichloroethyl ether
F sub m 0.939
F sub e 0.358
Chemical Name 1,3-Dichloropropene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.692
Chemical Name N,N-Dimethylaniline
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.329
Chemical Name Diethyl sulfate
F sub m 0.014
F sub e 0.275
Chemical Name 3,3 minutes -Dimethylbenzidine
F sub m 0.110
F sub e 0.233
Chemical Name 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
F sub m 0.486
F sub e 0.189
Chemical Name Dimethyl sulfate
F sub m 0.077
F sub e 0.247
Chemical Name 2,4-Dinitrophenol
F sub m 0.014
F sub e 0.297
Chemical Name 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
F sub m 0.004
F sub e 0.231
Chemical Name 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
F sub m 0.681
F sub e 0.268
Chemical Name Epichlorohydrin(1-Chloro-2,3-epoxy propane)
F sub m 0.859
F sub e 0.293
Chemical Name Ethyl acrylate
F sub m 0.788
F sub e 0.459
Chemical Name Ethylbenzene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.744
Chemical Name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.772
Chemical Name Ethylene dibromide
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.581
Chemical Name Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.619
Chemical Name Ethylene oxide
F sub m 0.712
F sub e 0.515
Chemical Name Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.722
Chemical Name Diethylene glycol diethyl ether
F sub m 0.770
F sub e 0.206
Chemical Name Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
F sub m 0.100
F sub e 0.328
Chemical Name Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether
F sub m 0.680
F sub e 0.389
Chemical Name Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
F sub m 0.360
F sub e 0.194
Chemical Name Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
F sub m 0.370
F sub e 0.184
Chemical Name Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
F sub m 0.370
F sub e 0.208
Chemical Name Hexachlorobenzene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.637
Chemical Name Hexachlorobutadiene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.761
Chemical Name Hexachloroethane
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.748
Chemical Name Hexane
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 1.000
Chemical Name Isophorone
F sub m 0.997
F sub e 0.397
Chemical Name Methanol
F sub m 0.321
F sub e 0.278
Chemical Name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
F sub m 0.539
F sub e 0.735
Chemical Name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.751
Chemical Name Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.796
Chemical Name Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
F sub m 0.881
F sub e 0.475
Chemical Name Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
F sub m 0.954
F sub e 0.547
Chemical Name Methyl methacrylate
F sub m 0.802
F sub e 0.447
Chemical Name Methyl tert-butyl ether
F sub m 0.911
F sub e 0.570
Chemical Name Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.680
Chemical Name Naphthalene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.561
Chemical Name Nitrobenzene
F sub m 0.575
F sub e 0.365
Chemical Name 2-Nitropropane
F sub m 0.537
F sub e 0.469
Chemical Name Phosgene
F sub m 0.868
F sub e 0.945
Chemical Name Propionaldehyde
F sub m 0.813
F sub e 0.424
Chemical Name Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.678
Chemical Name Propylene oxide
F sub m 0.841
F sub e 0.541
Chemical Name Styrene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.671
Chemical Name 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.518
Chemical Name Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.797
Chemical Name Toluene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.731
Chemical Name o-Toluidine
F sub m 0.267
F sub e 0.198
Chemical Name 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.652
Chemical Name 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
F sub m 0.966
F sub e 0.596
Chemical Name Trichloroethylene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.761
Chemical Name 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
F sub m 0.286
F sub e 0.298
Chemical Name Triethylamine
F sub m 0.930
F sub e 0.473
Chemical Name 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 1.000
Chemical Name Vinyl acetate
F sub m 0.748
F sub e 0.564
Chemical Name Vinyl chloride
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.823
Chemical Name Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.822
Chemical Name m-Xylene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.740
Chemical Name o-Xylene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.712
Chemical Name p-Xylene
F sub m 1.000
F sub e 0.740
(iv) The total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP concentration of
each HAP shall be calculated by averaging the results of the sample analyses as
follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
C Total VOHAP average concentration or average VOHAP concentration of each HAP
for wastewater stream, parts per million by weight.
Q sub t Total annual wastewater quantity for wastewater stream, kilograms per
year.
n Number of wastewater samples (at least 3).
Q sub i Annual wastewater quantity for wastewater stream represented by C sub
i, kilograms per year.
C sub i Measured average concentration (i.e., total VOHAP average concentration
or average VOHAP concentration of each HAP) in wastewater sample i, parts per
million by weight.
(c) To demonstrate that the total VOHAP mass flow rate from Group 1 wastewater
streams in new and existing SOCMI units is less than 1 megagram per year as
specified in Sec. 63.138(c)(5) of this subpart, an owner or operator shall
determine for the source the total VOHAP mass flow rate from all Group 1 wastewater
streams identified in Sec. 63.132(f)(1) of this subpart at their points of
generation by the following procedure:
(1) Determine the annual wastewater quantity for each wastewater stream using
the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Determine the total VOHAP average concentration for each wastewater stream
using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Calculate the annual total VOHAP mass flow rate in each wastewater stream
by multiplying the annual average flow rate of the wastewater stream times the
total VOHAP average concentration.
(4) Calculate the total source VOHAP mass flow rate from all Group 1 wastewater
streams by adding together the annual total VOHAP mass flow rate from each Group 1
wastewater stream.
(d) An owner or operator electing to reduce the total source VOHAP mass flow
rate to less than 1 megagram per year in accordance with Sec. 63.138(c)(6) of this
subpart shall determine the total source VOHAP mass flow rate from Group 1
wastewater streams identified in Sec. 63.138(f)(1) of this subpart by the following
procedures:
(1) The annual total VOHAP mass flow rate of each Group 1 wastewater stream
treated to the level of the provisions of 63.138(c) of this subpart shall not be
included in the total source VOHAP mass flow rate calculation.
(2) For each untreated Group 1 wastewater stream, annual total VOHAP mass flow
rate shall be determined by the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) For each Group 1 wastewater stream treated to levels less than required by
the provisions of Sec. 63.138(c) of this subpart, the annual total VOHAP mass flow
rate shall be determined as follows:
(i) Measurement or sampling shall occur at the point of discharge of the
treatment process or series of treatment processes. The point of discharge is
defined as the point where the treated wastewater exits the treatment process but
before it is mixed with other wastewater streams, and prior to exposure to the
atmosphere.
(ii) Determine the annual wastewater quantity for each wastewater stream at the
point of discharge of the treatment process or series of treatment processes using
the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) Determine the total VOHAP average concentration for each wastewater
stream at the point of discharge using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(iv) Calculate the annual total VOHAP quantity in each wastewater stream by
multiplying the annual wastewater quantity of the wastewater stream times the total
VOHAP average concentration.
(4) The total source VOHAP mass flow rate shall be calculated by summing the
annual total VOHAP quantity from all wastewater streams as determined in paragraphs
(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
(e) To determine the annual average wastewater flow rate for a wastewater
stream, one of the following methods shall be used:
(1) Use the maximum production capacity of the process unit, knowledge of the
process, and mass balance information to either: estimate directly the average
wastewater flow rate; or estimate the total annual wastewater volume and then
divide total volume by 525,600 minutes in a year;
(2) Select the highest average flow rate of wastewater from historical records
representing the most recent 5 years of operation or, if the process unit has been
in service for less than 5 years but at least 1 year, from historical records
representing the total operating life of the process unit;
(3) Measure the flow rate of the wastewater for the point of generation during
conditions that are representative of average wastewater generation rates.
Sec. 63.145 Process wastewater provisions-test methods and procedures to determine
compliance.
(a) This paragraph applies to the use of all performance tests to demonstrate
compliance of a treatment process or waste management unit.
(1) The test shall be conducted when the treatment process or waste management
unit is operating at a representative inlet wastewater stream flow rate and VOHAP
concentration under which it would be most difficult to demonstrate compliance.
(2) Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not
constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a test.
(3) All testing equipment shall be prepared and installed as specified in the
appropriate test methods.
(4) The owner or operator shall record all process information as is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test.
(b) This paragraph applies to the use of performance tests to demonstrate
compliance of a treatment process with the parts per million by weight wastewater
stream concentration limits at the outlet of the treatment process.
(1) The total VOHAP average concentration shall be measured for compliance with
the concentration alternatives specified in Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(C) and (d)(1)(i)
of this subpart; or the average concentration of each VOHAP shall be measured for
compliance with the concentration alternatives specified in Sec.
63.138(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this subpart.
(2) A minimum of three representative samples of the wastewater stream exiting
the treatment process shall be collected and analyzed using the procedures in Sec.
63.144(b)(3) of this subpart.
(c) This paragraph applies to the use of performance tests to demonstrate
compliance of a noncombustion treatment process with the percent reduction limits
for total VOHAP mass flow rate or VOHAP mass flow rate for strippability groups of
HAP's.
(1) The percent reduction of total VOHAP mass flow rate shall be measured for
compliance with Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(B) or (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this subpart; or of
VOHAP mass flow rate for strippability groups of HAP's for compliance with Sec.
63.138(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(D), or (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this
subpart.
(2) The same test method shall be used to analyze the wastewater samples from
both the inlet and outlet of the treatment process.
(3) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP or of VOHAP for a strippability group of
HAP's entering the treatment process (E sub b) and exiting the treatment process (E
sub a) shall be determined by computing the product of the flow rate of the
wastewater stream entering or exiting the treatment process, and the total VOHAP or
strippability group VOHAP average concentration of the entering or exiting
wastewater streams, respectively.
(i) The flow rate of the entering and exiting wastewater streams shall be
determined using the inlet and outlet flow meters, respectively.
(ii) The total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP average concentrations of the
entering and exiting wastewater streams shall be determined using the method
specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(3)(iii) of this subpart.
(iii) Three grab samples of the entering wastewater stream shall be taken at
equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-hour period constitutes
a run, and the performance test shall consist of a minimum of 3 runs.
(iv) Three grab samples of the exiting wastewater stream shall be taken at
equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-hour period constitutes
a run, and the performance test shall consist of a minimum of 3 runs conducted over
the same 3- hour period at which the mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability
group VOHAP entering the treatment process is determined.
(v) The mass flow rates of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP entering
and exiting the treatment process are calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S)
IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
E sub b Mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP entering the
treatment process, kilograms per hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP exiting the
treatment process, kilograms per hour.
K Density of the wastewater stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
V sub bi Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater entering the treatment
process during each run i, cubic meters per hour.
V sub ai Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater exiting the treatment
process during each run i, cubic meters per hour.
C sub bi Average concentration of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP in
the wastewater stream entering the treatment process during each run i, parts per
million by weight. This shall be the sum of the average VOHAP concentrations of all
HAP's in the stream, or of all HAP's in the target strippability group that are in
the stream.
C sub ai Average concentration of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP in
the wastewater stream exiting the treatment process during each run i, parts per
million by weight. This shall be the sum of the average VOHAP concentrations of all
HAP's in the stream or of all HAP's in the target strippability group that are in
the stream.
n Number of runs.
(4) The percent reduction across the treatment process shall be calculated as
follows:
R
E sub b-E sub a / E sub b
X 100
where:
R Control efficiency of the treatment process, percent.
E sub b Mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP entering the
treatment process, kilograms per hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP exiting the
treatment process, kilograms per hour.
(d) This paragraph applies to the use of a performance test to demonstrate
compliance of a combustion treatment process with the percent reduction limits for
total VOHAP mass flow rate or VOHAP mass flow rate for strippability groups of
HAP's. The percent reduction of total VOHAP mass flow rate shall be measured for
compliance with Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(B) or (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this subpart; or of
VOHAP mass flow rate for strippability groups of HAP's for compliance with Sec.
63.138(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(D), or (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this
subpart.
(1) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP or of VOHAP for a strippability group of
HAP's entering the combustion unit shall be determined by computing the product of
the average flow rate of the wastewater stream entering the combustion unit, as
determined by the inlet flow meter, and the total VOHAP or group VOHAP average
concentration of the waste stream, as determined using the sampling procedures in
Sec. 63.144(b)(3) of this subpart.
(2) Each 1-hour period constitutes a run, and the performance test shall
consist of a minimum of 3 runs conducted over at least a 3-hour period.
(3) If grab sampling techniques are used, then these grab samples shall be
taken at a minimum of three equally spaced time intervals during the run.
(4) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP into the
combustion unit is calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where:
E sub b Mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP into the
combustion unit, kilograms per hour.
K Density of the waste stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
V sub i Average volumetric flow rate of waste entering the combustion unit
during each run i, cubic meters per hour.
C sub i Average concentration of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP in
the waste stream entering the combustion unit during each run i, parts per million
by weight. This shall be the sum of the average VOHAP concentrations of all HAP's
in the stream, or of all HAP's in the target strippability group that are in the
stream.
n Number of runs.
(5) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP exiting the
combustion unit exhaust stack shall be determined as follows:
(i) The time period for the test shall not be less than 3 hours during which at
least three 1-hour runs are conducted and be the same time period at which the mass
flow rate of VOHAP entering the treatment process is determined. Each run shall
represent a time-integrated composite sample corresponding to the periods when the
waste feed is sampled.
(ii) A run shall consist of a 1-hour period during the test. For each run:
(A) The volume exhausted shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D from
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate.
(B) The total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP average concentration in the
exhaust downstream of the combustion unit shall be determined using Method 18 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. Alternatively, any other test method validated
according to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
(iii) The mass of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP emitted during each
run shall be calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
M sub i Mass of total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP emitted during run i,
kilograms.
V Volume of air-vapor mixture exhausted at standard conditions, cubic meters.
C sub j VOHAP concentration of compound j measured in the exhaust, parts per
million by volume.
MW sub j Molecular weight of compound j in exhaust stream, kilograms per
kilogram-mole.
m Number of HAP compounds in total or in strippability group.
0.0416 Conversion factor for molar volume, kilogram-mole per cubic meter at 293
degrees Kelvin and 760 millimeters mercury absolute.
(iv) The total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP mass emission rate in the
exhaust shall be calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
E sub a Mass flow rate of total or strippability group VOHAP emitted, kilograms
per hour.
M sub i Mass of total or strippability group VOHAP emitted during run i,
kilograms.
T Total time of all runs, hours.
n Number of runs.
(6) The total VOHAP or strippability group VOHAP destruction efficiency for the
combustion unit shall be calculated as follows:
R
E sub b-E sub a / E sub b
X 100
where:
R Total or strippability group VOHAP destruction efficiency for the combustion
unit, percent.
E sub b Mass flow rate of total or strippability group VOHAP entering the
combustion unit, kilograms per hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of total or strippability group VOHAP exiting the
combustion unit, kilograms per hour.
(e) An owner or operator shall test equipment for emissions of 500 parts per
million by volume or greater required in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 and 63.139 of
this subpart in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with Method 21 from Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
(2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume of hydrocarbon in air);
and
(ii) A mixture of methane and air at a concentration of approximately, but less
than, 500 parts per million by volume methane.
(iii) The instrument may be calibrated at a higher methane concentration up to
2,000 parts per million by volume higher than the leak definition concentration for
a specific piece of equipment for monitoring that piece of equipment. The
instrument may not be calibrated at a methane concentration lower than the leak
definition concentration for a specific piece of equipment.
(5) The background level shall be determined as set forth in Method 21.
(6) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close as possible to the interface as described in Method 21.
(7) The instrument response factors shall be considered according to paragraphs
(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) of this section.
(i) The response factors used shall be the instrument response factor
determined for the predominant HAP (i.e., the HAP present at the highest
percentage) at 500 parts per million by volume. The response factors may be
obtained from the available literature, the instrument manufacturer, or determined
for the specific instrument and HAP.
(ii) Chemical composition of individual process streams may be determined by
sampling, engineering calculations, or process knowledge. A separate determination
for each stream is not necessary if all or portions of the process unit can be
shown to exhibit similar composition. The basis for all process stream composition
determinations shall be documented as required in Sec. 63.144(b) of this subpart.
(8) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration indicated by
the instrument and the background level is compared to 500 parts per million by
volume for determining compliance.
(f) A performance test to demonstrate compliance of a vent stream control
device with the organic compound reduction efficiency requirement specified under
Sec. 63.139(b) of this subpart shall use the following procedures:
(1) Sampling sites shall be selected using Method 1 or 1A from appendix A of 40
CFR part 60, as appropriate.
(2) The mass flow rate of organics entering and exiting the control device
shall be determined as follows:
(i) The time period for the test shall not be less than 3 hours during which at
least three runs are conducted.
(ii) A run shall consist of a 1-hour period during the test. For each run:
(A) The volume exhausted shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D from
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate;
(B) The organic concentration in the vent stream entering and exiting the
control device shall be determined using Method 18 from appendix A of 40 CFR part
60. Alternatively, any other test method validated according to the procedures in
Method 301 of appendix A of this part may be used.
(iii) The mass flow rate of organics entering and exiting the control device
during each run shall be calculated as follows: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where:
E sub a Mass flow rate of organics exiting the control device, kilograms per
hour.
E sub b Mass flow rate of organics entering the control device, kilograms per
hour.
V sub aj Average volumetric flow rate of vent stream exiting the control device
during run j at standards conditions, cubic meters per hour.
V sub bj Average volumetric flow rate of vent stream entering the control
device during run j at standards conditions, cubic meters per hour.
m Number of runs.
C sub aij Organic concentration of compound i measured in the vent stream
exiting the control device during run j as determined by Method 18, parts per
million by volume on a dry basis.
C sub bij Organic concentration of compound i measured in the vent stream
entering the control device during run j as determined by Method 18, parts per
million by volume on a dry basis.
MW sub i Molecular weight of organic compound i in the vent stream, kilograms
per kilogram-mole.
n Number of organic compounds in the vent stream.
0.0416 Conversion factor for molar volume, kilograms-mole per cubic meter at
293 degrees Kelvin and 760 millimeters mercury absolute.
(4) The organic reduction efficiency for the control device shall be calculated
as follows:
R
E sub b - E sub a / E sub b
X
100
where:
R Total organic reduction efficiency for the control device, percent.
E sub b Mass flow rate of organics entering the control device, kilograms per
hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of organics exiting the control device, kilograms per
hour.
(g) A performance test to demonstrate compliance with the mass removal
provision for new SOCMI process units in Sec. 63.138(b)(1)(iii)(C) of this subpart
shall consist of a determination of mass removal required to be achieved, and a
determination of mass removal actually achieved. Actual mass removal and compliance
shall be determined by the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section. The required
mass removal for each Group 1 wastewater stream prior to combination of the streams
for treatment shall be determined using the following equation: {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
RMR Required mass removal of VOHAP from Table 8 HAP compounds in a Group 1
wastewater stream, in kilograms per year.
K Density of the Group 1 wastewater stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
V Annual wastewater quantity of the Group 1 wastewater stream, cubic meters per
year.
n Number of Table 8 HAP compounds in stream.
Cj Average VOHAP concentration of each Table 8 organic HAP compound ''j'' in
the Group 1 wastewater stream at the point of generation, parts per million by
weight.
0.99 Required removal fraction of VOHAP from Table 8 compounds.
(1) The annual wastewater quantity for each Group 1 wastewater stream to be
combined for treatment (V), shall be determined using the procedures specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The VOHAP average concentration of each Table 8 HAP compound (Cj) in each
Group 1 wastewater stream to be combined for treatment shall be determined using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(3) of this subpart.
(3) The total required mass removal is calculated by adding together the
required mass removal for each individual Group 1 stream to be combined for
treatment.
(h) A performance test to demonstrate compliance with the mass removal
provisions for new and existing SOCMI process units in Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(D) of
this subpart shall consist of a determination of mass removal required to be
achieved, and a determination of mass removal actually achieved. Actual mass
removal and compliance shall be determined by the procedure in paragraph (i) of
this section. The required mass removal for each Group 1 wastewater stream prior to
combination of the streams for treatment shall be determined using the following
equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
RMR Required mass removal of total VOHAP average concentration in the Group 1
wastewater stream, prior to combination with other Group 1 wastewater streams,
kilograms per year.
K Density of the Group 1 wastewater stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
V Average wastewater flow rate for the Group 1 wastewater stream, cubic meters
per year.
n Number of organic HAP compounds in stream.
Cj Average VOHAP concentration of compound ''j'' in the Group 1 wastewater
stream at the point of generation, parts per million by weight.
F Required percent removal of each compound ''j'' (target removal efficiency
from Table 9).
(1) The average wastewater flow rate for each Group 1 wastewater stream to be
combined for treatment (V), shall be determined using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.144(e) of this subpart.
(2) The average of each VOHAP concentration (Cj) in each Group 1 wastewater
stream to be combined for treatment shall be determined using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(3) of this subpart.
(3) The total required mass removal is calculated by adding together the
required mass removal for each individual Group 1 wastewater stream to be combined
for treatment.
(i) For a performance test to demonstrate compliance of a treatment process
with the mass removal standards, the actual mass removal of total VOHAP for
compliance with Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(D) of this subpart or of VOHAP from table 8
compounds for compliance with Sec. 63.138(b)(1)(iii)(C) of this subpart in the
wastewater stream shall be determined by the following procedure:
(1) The actual mass removal of a treatment process, or series of treatment
processes other than a properly operated biological treatment unit shall be
determined using the following equation:
MR (E sub b-E sub a)
where:
MR Actual mass removal by the treatment process or series of treatment
processes of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from Table 8 HAP
compounds, kilograms per hour.
E sub b Mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds entering the treatment process or series of treatment
processes, kilograms per hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds exiting the treatment process or series of treatment
processes, kilograms per hour.
(i) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds entering the treatment process (E sub b) shall be determined
using the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(ii) The mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds exiting the treatment process (E sub a) shall be determined
using the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The actual mass removal (MR) of a treatment process which is a properly
operated biological treatment unit is equal to the mass removed due to biological
destruction. The mass removal should be determined using the following equation:
MR (E sub b-E sub a) *F sub bio
where:
MR Actual mass removal by the treatment process or series of treatment
processes of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from Table 8 HAP
compounds, kilograms per hour.
E sub b Mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds entering the treatment process or series of treatment
processes, kilograms per hour.
E sub a Mass flow rate of total VOHAP for Table 9 HAP compounds or VOHAP from
Table 8 HAP compounds exiting the treatment process or series of treatment
processes, kilograms per hour.
F sub bio The fraction of VOHAP from Table 8 HAP compounds, or total VOHAP for
Table 9 HAP compounds, biodegraded in a properly operated biological treatment
unit. This fraction shall be determined using WATER7. The site specific biorate
constants used as inputs to WATER7 shall be determined using Method 304 of appendix
A of this part.
(3) Compliance with the mass removal provisions in Sec. 63.138(b)(1)(iii)(C) or
Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(iii)(D) of this subpart is achieved when the actual mass removal
of the treatment process (MR) is demonstrated to meet or exceed the total required
mass removal (RMR), determined using the procedures specified in paragraphs (g) or
(h) of this section, respectively.
Sec. 63.146 Process wastewater provisions-reporting.
(a) The owner or operator shall submit the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section as part of the Implementation Plan required
by Sec. 63.151(d) of this subpart.
(1) For each SOCMI process unit at a new source, the owner or operator shall
submit the information specified in Table 14a of this subpart.
(2) For each SOCMI process unit at new and existing sources, the owner or
operator shall submit the information specified in Table 14b of this subpart.
Table 14 a.-Information To Be Submitted With Implementation
Plan for Process Units at New Sources sup a,b
Process unit identification
Stream identification
VOHAP concentration (ppmw) sup c
Average
Range
Flow rate (lpm) sup d
Group 1 or Group 2 sup e
Intend to control? sup f (Y or N)
Intended treatment technology sup g
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Implementation Plan are
specified in Sec. 63.151 of this subpart.
sup c Flow-weighted annual average VOHAP concentrations, at point
of generation, of each HAP compound listed in Table 8 in Sec.
63.131 of this subpart that is present in the wastewater stream,
parts per million by weight (ppmw).
sup d Annual average flow rate at point of generation, liters per
minute (lpm).
sup e Is the stream Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 8 compounds as
determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.132(c) of this
subpart?
sup f Does the owner or operator intend to control the stream in
accordance with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.138(b) of
this subpart, yes (Y) or no (N)?
sup g If the owner or operator intends to control the stream,
what is the intended treatment technology (e.g., steam stripping,
biological treatment, etc.)?
Table 14 b.-Information To Be Submitted With Implementation
Plan for Process Units at new and Existing Sources sup a,b
Process unit identification
Stream identification
Total VOHAP concentration sup c (ppmw)
Average
Range
Flow rate (lpm) sup d
Group 1 or Group 2 sup e
Mass flow rate sup f(Mg/yr)
Intend to control sup h (Y or N)
Intended treatment technology sup i (Y or N)
Revised mass flow rate sup j (Mg/yr)
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Implementation Plan are
specified in Sec. 63.151 of this subpart.
sup c Flow-weighted annual average total VOHAP concentration and
expected range of total VOHAP in wastewater stream at point of
generation, parts per million by weight (ppmw).
sup d Annual average flow rate at point of generation, liters per
minute (lpm).
sup e Is the stream Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 9 compounds as
determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.132(f) of this
subpart?
sup f Annual total VOHAP mass flow rate of Group 1 stream at
point of generation, megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
sup g Annual total VOHAP mass flow rate from all Group 1 streams
at their points of generation, summation of entries in above
column, megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
sup h Does the owner or operator intend to control the stream in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.138(c) or (d) of this
subpart, yes (Y) or no (N)?
sup i If the owner or operator intends to control the stream,
what is the intended treatment technology (e.g., steam stripping,
biological treatment, etc.)?
sup j If the sum, for the source, of the total VOHAP mass flow
rate of those Group 1 wastewater streams not treated to the
levels required in Sec. 63.138(c)(1) has been reduced to less
than 1 megagram per year, enter the following:
-The VOHAP mass flow rate at the point of generation for each
untreated Group 1 wastewater stream.
-The VOHAP mass flow rate at the outlet of the treatment process
for each Group 1 wastewater stream treated less stringently than
required in Sec. 63.138(c)(1).
-Zero for each Group 2 wastewater stream and for each Group 1
wastewater stream treated to the level required in Sec.
63.138(b)(1).
sup k Enter sum of entries in above column to demonstrate that
annual total VOHAP mass flow rate for the source has been reduced
below 1 megagram per year.
(3) For each waste management unit, treatment process, or closed vent system
and control device used to comply with Secs. 63.138(b)(1), 63.138(c)(1), 63.138(d),
or 63.139 of this subpart for which the owner or operator seeks to monitor a
parameter other than those specified in Table 11 or Table 12 of this subpart, the
owner or operator shall submit a request for approval to monitor alternative
parameters according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.151(f) or Sec.
63.152(e) of this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator shall submit the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(9) of this section as part of the Notification of Compliance
Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart.
(1) For each SOCMI process unit at a new source, the owner or operator shall
submit the information specified in Table 15a of this subpart.
(2) For each SOCMI process unit at new and existing sources, the owner or
operator shall submit the information specified in Table 15b of this subpart.
(3) For each SOCMI process unit at an existing source for which the owner or
operator elects to comply with the Process Unit Alternative specified in Sec.
63.138(d) of this subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in Table 16 of this subpart.
(4) For each treatment process identified in Table 15a, 15b, or 16 of this
subpart that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual
removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or operator shall submit the
information specified in Table 17a of this subpart.
Table 15a.- Information To Be Submitted With Notification of
Compliance Status for Process Units at New Sources sup a,b
Process unit identification code
Stream identification code
VOHAP concentration (ppmw) sup c
Average
Range
Flow rate (1pm) sup d
Group 1 or Group 2 sup e
Compliance approach sup f
Treatment process(es) identification code sup g
Waste management unit(s) identification sup h
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
sup c Flow-weighted annual average VOHAP concentrations, at point
of generation, of each HAP compound listed in Table 8 in Sec.
63.131 of this subpart that is present in the wastewater stream,
parts per million by weight (ppmw).
sup d Annual average flow rate at point of generation, liters per
minute (lpm).
sup e Is the stream Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 8 compounds as
determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.132(c) of this
Subpart?
sup f If stream is being controlled in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(b), identify the subparagraph in Sec.
63.138(b) with which the owner or operator has elected to comply.
For example, if the owner or operator elects to recycle the
stream to a production process, the appropriate subparagraph is
Sec. 63.138(b)(1)(i).
sup g If the stream is being treated in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(b), give identification code of
treatment unit(s) treating stream. Identification codes should
correspond to entries in Table 17a.
sup h For each Group 1 wastewater stream, identify the waste
management unit(s) receiving or managing the stream.
Identification codes should correspond to entries in Table 17b.
Table 15 b.-Information To Be Submitted With Notification of
Compliance Status for Process Units at New and Existing Sources
sup a, b
Process unit identification
Stream identification
Total VOHAP Concentration (ppmw) sup c
Average
Range
Flow rate (lpm) sup d
Group 1 or Group 2 sup e
Mass flow rate sup f (Mg/yr)
Compliance approach sup h
Treatment process identification sup i
Revised mass flow rate sup j (Mg/yr)
Waste management unit identification sup l
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
sup c Flow-weighted annual average total VOHAP concentration and
expected range of total VOHAP in wastewater stream at point of
generation, parts per million by weight (ppmw).
sup d Annual average flow rate at point of generation, liters per
minute (lpm).
sup e Is the stream Group 1 or Group 2 for Table 9 compounds as
determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.132(f)?
sup f Annual total VOHAP mass flow rate of Group 1 stream at
point of generation, megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
sup g Annual total VOHAP mass flow rate from all Group 1 streams
at their points of generation, summation of entries in above
column, megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
sup h If the stream is being controlled in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(c), identify the subparagraph in Sec.
63.138(c) with which the owner or operator has elected to comply.
For example, if the owner or operator elects to reduce the total
VOHAP mass flow rate of an individual stream by 99 percent, the
appropriate subparagraph is Sec. 63.138(c)(1)(ii)(B).
sup i If stream is being treated in accordance with Sec.
63.138(c), give identification code of treatment unit(s) treating
stream. Identification codes should correspond to entries in
Table 17a.
sup j If the sum, for the source, of the total VOHAP mass flow
rates of those Group 1 wastewater streams not treated to the
levels required in Sec. 63.138(c)(1) has been reduced to less
than 1 megagram per year, enter the following:
-The VOHAP mass flow rate at the point of generation for each
untreated Group 1 wastewater stream.
-The VOHAP mass flow rate at the outlet of the treatment process
for each Group 1 wastewater stream treated less stringently than
required in Sec. 63.138(b)(1).
-Zero for each Group 2 wastewater stream and for each Group 1
wastewater stream treated to the level required in Sec.
63.138(c)(1).
sup k Enter sum of entries in above column to demonstrate that
annual total VOHAP mass flow rate for the source has been reduced
below 1 megagram per year.
sup l For each Group 1 wastewater stream, identify the waste
management unit(s) receiving or managing the stream.
Identification codes should correspond to entries in Table 17b.
Table 16.- Information To Be Submitted With Notification of
Compliance Status for Process Units at Existing Sources Complying
With Process Unit Alternative in Sec. 63.138(d) sup a,b,c
Process Unit identification
Stream identification
Total VOHAP concentration sup d (ppmw)
Average
Range
Flow sup e Rate (lpm)
Treatment process identification sup f
Waste management unit identification sup g
sup a The information specified in this table shall be provided
for each wastewater stream generated by the process unit to which
this alternative provision is being applied.
sup b The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup c Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
sup d Flow-weighted annual average and expected range of total
VOHAP concentration of individual or combined stream before
exposure to the atmosphere and before combination with streams
other than process wastewater from the specific process unit,
parts per million by weight (ppmw).
sup e Annual average flow rate of combined or individual
wastewater stream, liters per minute (lpm).
sup f If stream is being controlled, give identification code(s)
of treatment unit(s) treating stream. Identification codes should
correspond to entries in Table 17a.
sup g For each wastewater stream generated within the process
unit, identify the waste management unit(s) receiving or managing
the stream. Identification codes should correspond to entries in
Table 17b.
Table 17a.- Information for Treatment Processes To Be Submitted
With Notification of Compliance Status sup a,b
Treatment process identification sup c
Description sup d
Wastewater stream(s) treated sup e
Monitoring parameters sup f
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
sup c Identification codes should correspond to those listed in
Tables 14 through 16.
sup d Description of treatment process.
sup e Stream identification code for each wastewater stream
treated by each treatment unit. Identification codes should
correspond to entries listed in Tables 14 through 16.
sup f Parameter(s) to be monitored or measured in accordance with
Table 11 in Sec. 63.143 of this Subpart.
(5) For each waste management unit identified in Table 15a, 15b, or 16 of this
subpart that receives or manages a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed
from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or operator shall submit the
information specified in Table 17b of this subpart.
Table 17b.- Information for Waste Management Units To Be
Submitted With Notification of Compliance Status sup a, b
Waste management unit identification sup c
Description sup d
Wastewater stream(s) received or managed sup e
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
sup c Identification codes should correspond to those listed in
Tables 14 through 16.
sup d Description of waste management unit.
sup e Stream identification code for each wastewater stream
received or managed by each waste management unit. Identification
codes should correspond to entries listed in Tables 14 through
16.
Table 18.-Information on Residuals To Be Submitted With
Notification of Compliance Status sup a sup b
Residual identification sup c
Residual description sup d
Wastewater stream identifi-cation sup e
Treatment process sup f
Fate sup g
Control device identification code
Control device description sup h
Control device efficiency sup i
sup a The information specified in this table must be submitted;
however, it may be submitted in any format. This table presents
an example format.
sup b Other requirements for the Notification of Compliance
Status are specified in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart.
sup c Name or identification code of residual removed from Group
1 wastewater stream.
sup d Description of residual, e.g., stream stripper A-13
overhead condensates.
sup e Identification of stream from which residual is removed.
sup f Treatment process from which residual originates.
sup g Indicate whether residual is returned to production
process, residual is returned to waste management unit or
treatment process, or VOHAP content of residual is destroyed by
99 percent.
sup h If the fate of the residual is such that the VOHAP content
is destroyed by 99 percent, give description of device used for
HAP destruction.
sup i If the fate of the residual is such that the VOHAP content
is destroyed by 99 percent, provide an estimate of control device
efficiency and attach substantiation in accordance with Sec.
63.146(b)(9) of this Subpart.
(6) For each residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner or
operator shall submit the information specified in Table 18 of this subpart.
(7) For each closed vent system and control device used to comply with Secs.
63.133 through 63.139 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (b)(7)(ii) of this section.
(i) For each flare, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i)(A) through (b)(7)(i)(C).
(A) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted);
(B) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance
determination required by Sec. 63.139(c)(3) of this Subpart; and
(C) All periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(ii) For each control device other than a flare, the owner or operator shall
submit the information specified in paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(A) and in either paragraph
(b)(7)(ii) (B) or (C) of this section.
(A) The information on parameter ranges specified in Sec. 63.152(b)(2) of this
Subpart for the applicable parameters specified in Table 12 of this Subpart, unless
the parameter range has already been established in the operating permit; and
either
(B) The design analysis specified in Sec. 63.139(c)(2) of this Subpart; or
(C) Results of the performance test specified in Sec. 63.139(c)(1) of this
Subpart. Performance test results shall include operating ranges of key process and
control parameters during the performance test; the value, averaged over the period
of the performance test, of each parameter identified in the Implementation Plan or
operating permit as being monitored in accordance with Sec. 63.143 of this Subpart;
and applicable supporting calculations.
(8) For each waste management unit or treatment process used to comply with
Sec. 63.138 (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d) of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall
submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (b)(8)(iii) of
this section.
(i) For Items 1 through 6 in Table 11 of this Subpart, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the initial measurement of the applicable parameters
specified in Table 11 of this Subpart and any applicable supporting calculations.
For example, for Item 3 in Table 11, the owner or operator would include a
calculation of percent reduction of total VOHAP mass flow rate in accordance with
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.145(c) of this subpart.
(ii) For Items 7 and 8 in Table 11 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall
submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(ii) (A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) The information on parameter ranges specified in Sec. 63.152(b)(2) of this
Subpart for the parameters approved by the Administrator, unless the parameter
range has already been established in the operating permit.
(B) Results of the initial measurements of the parameters approved by the
Administrator and any applicable supporting calculations.
(iii) For Item 9 in Table 11 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall
submit the information on parameter ranges specified in Sec. 63.152(b)(2) of this
Subpart for the parameters specified in Item 9 of Table 11, unless the parameter
range has already been established in the operating permit.
(9) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(9)(iii) of this section, for each waste
management unit or treatment process used to comply with Sec. 63.138(b)(1), (c)(1),
(d), or (g)(3) of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in either paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this section.
(i) The design analysis and supporting documentation specified in Sec.
63.138(i)(1) of this Subpart.
(ii) Results of the performance test specified in Sec. 63.138(i)(2) of this
Subpart. Performance test results shall include operating ranges of key process and
control parameters during the performance test; the value, averaged over the period
of the performance test, of each parameter identified in the Implementation Plan or
operating permit as being monitored in accordance with Sec. 63.143 of this Subpart;
and applicable supporting calculations.
(iii) If the owner or operator elects to use one of the technologies specified
in Sec. 63.138(l) of this Subpart, the owner or operator is exempt from the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) and (b)(9)(ii) of this section.
(c) For each waste management unit that receives, manages, or treats a Group 1
wastewater stream or residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream, the owner
or operator shall submit as part of the next Periodic Report required by Sec.
63.152(c) the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) Results of each inspection required by Sec. 63.143(a) of this Subpart in
which a control equipment failure was identified. Control equipment failure is
defined for each waste management unit in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137. Each
Periodic Report shall include the date of the inspection, identification of each
waste management unit in which a control equipment failure was detected,
description of the failure, and description of the nature of and date the repair
was made.
(2) Results of each annual inspection when an instrument reading of 500 parts
per million by volume or greater above background is measured by Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, for each waste
management unit or treatment process used to comply with Sec. 63.138(b)(1), (c)(1),
or (d) of this subpart, the owner or operator shall submit as part of the next
Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.152(c) the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section for the monitoring required by Sec. 63.143(b)
of this Subpart.
(1) For Items 1 through 6 in Table 11, the owner or operator shall submit the
results of the measurements of the appropriate parameters specified in Table 11 and
any applicable supporting calculations in which the results indicate that the waste
management unit or treatment process failed to meet the requirements specified in
the applicable paragraphs cited in column 1 of Table 11.
(2) For Item 7 in Table 11, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in either paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) For each parameter approved by the Administrator and required by the
Administrator to be monitored continuously, the owner or operator shall submit the
monitoring results for each operating day during which the daily average value of
the monitored parameter was outside the range established in the Notification of
Compliance Status or operating permit.
(ii) For each parameter approved by the Administrator for which monitoring is
not required by the Administrator to be continuous, the owner or operator shall
submit the results of measurements that indicate that the biological treatment unit
failed to meet the requirements specified in the applicable paragraphs cited in
column 1 of Table 11.
(3) For Item 9 in Table 11 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall submit
the monitoring results for each operating day during which the daily average value
of any monitored parameter specified in Item 9 of Table 11 of this Subpart was
outside the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating
permit.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, for each closed vent
system and control device used to comply with Secs. 63.133 through 63.139 of this
subpart, the owner or operator shall submit as part of the next Periodic Report
required by Sec. 63.152(c) the information specified in either paragraph (e)(1) or
(e)(2) of this section.
(1) The information specified in Table 19 of this Subpart, or
Table 19.- Periodic Reporting Requirements for Control Devices
Used to Comply With Secs. 63.133-63.139
Control device Thermal incinerator
Reporting requirements 1. Report all operating days when the
daily average sup b firebox temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS sup a or operating permit.
Control device Catalytic incinerator
Reporting requirements 1. Report all operating days when the
daily average sup b upstream temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit.
Reporting requirements 2. Report all operating days when the
daily average sup b temperature difference across the catalyst
bed is outside the range established in the NCS or operating
permit.
Control device Boiler or process heater with a design heat
input capacity less than 44 megawatts and vent stream is not
mixed with the primary fuel
Reporting requirements 1. Report all operating days when the
daily average sup b firebox temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit.
Control device Flare
Reporting requirements 1. Report the duration of all periods
when the pilot flame is absent.
Control device Condenser
Reporting requirements 1. Report all operating days when the
daily average sup b exit temperature is outside the range
established in the NCS or operating permit.
Control device Carbon adsorber
Reporting requirements 1. Report all carbon bed regeneration
cycles when the total regeneration stream mass flow is outside
the range established in the NCS or operating permit.
Reporting requirements 2. Report all carbon bed regeneration
cycles during which the temperature of the carbon bed after
regeneration is outside the range established in the NCS or
operating permit.
Control device All control devices
Reporting requirements 1. Report all periods when the vent
stream is diverted through a bypass line, or
Reporting requirements 2. Report all monthly inspections that
show the valves are not sealed closed or the seal has been
changed.
sup a NCS Notification of Compliance Status described in Sec.
63.152 of this Subpart.
sup b The daily average is the average of all values recorded
during the operating day, as specified in Sec. 63.147(f) of this
Subpart.
(2) If the owner or operator elects to comply with Sec. 63.143(e)(2), i.e., an
organic monitoring device installed at the outlet of the control device, the owner
or operator shall submit the monitoring results for each operating day during which
the daily average concentration level or reading is outside the range established
in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit.
(f) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a
vent stream away from a control device used to comply with Secs. 63.133 through
63.139 of this subpart and to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall include
the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section in the
next Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator shall identify all periods when the vent stream was
diverted from the control device through a bypass line.
(2) If a seal mechanism is used to secure the bypass line in accordance with
Sec. 63.139(h)(2), the owner or operator shall identify all periods when the seal
mechanism was broken, the bypass line valve position was changed, or the key to
unlock the bypass line valve was checked out.
(g) Where the owner or operator obtains approval to use a control device other
than one for which monitoring requirements are specified in Sec. 63.143 of this
subpart, or to monitor parameters other than those specified in Table 11 or 12 of
this subpart, the Administrator will specify appropriate reporting requirements.
(h) If the owner or operator requests an extension for emptying a wastewater
tank in accordance with Sec. 63.133(e)(2) of this subpart, the request shall
include the information specified in Sec. 63.133(e)(2).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2060-
XXXX.)
Sec. 63.147 Process wastewater provisions- recordkeeping.
(a) The owner or operator of a SOCMI process unit shall keep a record of all
reports submitted in accordance with Sec. 63.146 of this subpart, including the
Implementation Plan, Notification of Compliance Status, and Periodic Reports.
(b) The owner or operator transferring a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual
removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream in accordance with Sec. 63.132(i) of this
subpart shall keep a record of the notice sent to the treatment operator stating
that the wastewater stream or residual contains organic HAP's which are required to
be managed and treated in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
(c) The owner or operator shall keep in a readily accessible location the
records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section.
(1) A record that each waste management unit inspection required by Secs.
63.133 through 63.137 was performed.
(2) A record that each inspection for closed vent systems and control devices
required by Sec. 63.139 was performed.
(3) A record of the results of each seal gap measurement required by Secs.
63.133(d) and 63.137(c). The records shall include the date of the measurement, the
raw data obtained in the measurement, and the calculations described in Sec.
63.120(b)(2), (3), and (4) of this subpart.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, a record of the
concentration values and applicable calculations for each measurement specified in
Items 1 through 6 in Table 11 of this subpart.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, continuous records of
the monitored parameters specified in Item 9 of Table 11, in Table 12, and in Sec.
63.143(e)(2) of this subpart.
(6) For Item 7 and Item 8 of Table 11 of this subpart, the owner or operator
shall keep the records approved by the Administrator.
(d) For each closed vent system and control device used to comply with Secs.
63.133 through 63.139 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall keep a record of
the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(1) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system and control device
that are designated as unsafe to inspect, an explanation stating why the equipment
is unsafe to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(2) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system and control device
that are designated as difficult to inspect, an explanation stating why the
equipment is difficult to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(3) For boilers or process heaters, records of any changes in the location at
which the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone as required in Sec.
63.139(b)(1).
(e) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a
vent stream away from a control device used to comply with Secs. 63.133 through
63.139 of this subpart and to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall keep a
record of the information specified in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this
section.
(1) Continuous records of whether or not there is vent stream flow as specified
in Sec. 63.138(h)(1) of this subpart and records of the duration of all periods
when the vent stream is diverted from the control device; or
(2) Records that monthly visual inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms
has been done; records of the duration of all periods when the seal mechanism is
broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and- key
type lock has been checked out; and records of any car seal that has broken.
(f) The owner or operator shall keep records of the daily average value of each
continuously monitored parameter for each operating day, except as provided in
paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) of this section.
(1) The daily average shall be calculated as the average of all values for a
monitored parameter recorded during the operating day. The average shall cover a 24-
hour period if operation is continuous, or the number of hours of operation per day
if operation is not continuous.
(2) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating permit or
the Notification of Compliance Status. It may be from midnight to midnight or
another daily period.
(3) If all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an operating day
are within the range established in the Notification of Compliance Status or
operating permit, the owner or operator may record that all values were within the
range rather than calculating and recording a daily average for that day.
(4) For flares, records of the duration of all periods during which the pilot
flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily averages.
(5) For carbon adsorbers, the owner or operator shall keep the records
specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) instead of daily averages.
(i) Records of the total regeneration stream mass flow for each carbon bed
regeneration cycle.
(ii) Records of the temperature of the carbon bed after each regeneration
cycle.
(g) Where the owner or operator obtains approval to use a control device other
than one for which monitoring requirements are specified in Sec. 63.143 of this
subpart, or to monitor parameters other than those specified in Table 11 or Table
12 of this subpart, the Administrator will specify appropriate recordkeeping
requirements.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2060-XXX)
Sec. 63.148 Reserved
Sec. 63.149 Reserved
Sec. 63.150 Emissions averaging provisions.
(a) This section applies to owners or operators who seek to comply with
emission limits by using emissions averaging according to Sec. 62.112(c)(2) of this
subpart rather than following the provisions of Secs. 63.113 through 63.149 of this
subpart for all emission points.
(b) Unless an operating permit application has been submitted, the owner or
operator shall develop, and submit for approval, an Implementation Plan containing
all of the information required in Sec. 63.151(d) of this subpart for all points to
be included in an emission average. The Implementation Plan or operating permit
application shall identify all emission points to be included in the emissions
averaging. This must include any Group 1 emission points to which the reference
control technology (defined in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart) is not applied and all
other emission points being controlled as part of the average.{pg 62745}
(c) The following emission points can be credited in an emissions average to
offset use of controls less stringent than the reference technology on Group 1
emission points, if sufficient information is available to determine the
appropriate value of credits for the point:
(1) A Group 2 emission point to which a new control has been applied after
November 15, 1990.
(2) A Group 1 emission point that is controlled by a technology that the
Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards or the operating
permit authority agrees has a higher nominal control efficiency than the reference
technology if the emission point was not controlled to this level on or before
November 15, 1990. Information on the nominal control efficiencies for such
technologies must be submitted and approved as provided in paragraph (h) of this
section.
(3) Emission points from which emissions are reduced by pollution prevention
projects initiated after 1987. For Group 1 emission points, in order to be
credited, the pollution prevention projects must result in emission levels lower
than what would have occurred if the reference technology had been applied to the
emission points at their emission levels prior to pollution prevention. Pollution
prevention is defined in paragraph (i) of this section.
(4) Any Group 2 emission point to which controls were applied as part of the
early reduction program established by the EPA under section 112(i)(5) of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (56 FR 27338).
(5) A Group 1 emission point controlled by a technology EPA agrees has a higher
nominal control efficiency than the reference technology if this control was
applied as part of the early reduction program established by the EPA under section
112(i)(5) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (56 FR 27338).
(6) Any Group 2 emissions point to which controls were applied as part of a
commitment under the Agency's 33/50 program described in EPA Publication Number EPA-
741-K-92-001.
(7) Any Group 1 emissions point controlled by a technology EPA agrees has a
higher nominal control efficiency than the reference control technology if the
control was applied as part of a commitment under the Agency's 33/50 program
described in EPA Publication Number EPA-741-K-92- 001.
(d) The following emission points cannot be used to generate credits in
emission averaging:
(1) Emission points already controlled on or before November 15, 1990, except
those that were controlled as part of the Section 112(i)(5) early reduction
program, the 33/50 program, or a pollution prevention program as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Emission points achieving control levels higher than the nominal efficiency
of a reference technology when using a reference control technology, unless the
requirements of Sec. 63.150(h)(6) of this subpart have been satisfied for process
vents, or the requirements in Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(C) or (g)(3)(iii)(D) have been
satisfied for storage vessels. For example, it is not allowable to claim that an
internal floating roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(b) of this Subpart
applied to a storage vessel is achieving greater than 95 percent control.
(3) Production cutbacks and shutdowns. The emission credits are calculated at
the actual monthly production level and do not include any process units that are
shut down.
(e) For all points included in an emission average, the owner or operator
shall:
(1) Calculate and record monthly debits for all Group 1 emission points that
are controlled to a level less stringent than the reference technology level for
those emission points. Equations in paragraph (f) of this section shall be used to
calculate debits.
(2) Calculate and record monthly credits for all Group 1 or Group 2 emission
points that are overcontrolled to compensate for the debits using equations in
paragraph (g) of this section. Emission points that meet the criteria of paragraph
(c) of this section may be included in the credit calculation, whereas those
described in paragraph (d) of this section shall not be included.
(3) Demonstrate that annual credits calculated according to paragraph (g) of
this section are greater than or equal to debits calculated for the same annual
compliance period according to paragraph (f) of this section. If the credits are
not greater than or equal to the debits for the same annual compliance period, and
the owner or operator has met the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through
(e)(3)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator may use banked credits and
credits from the relevant compliance period to offset the debits. If banked credits
are available and necessary, compliance shall be judged based on the sum of banked
credits and credits from the relevant compliance period, averaged with debits from
the relevant compliance period.
(i) If the credits calculated according to paragraph (g) of this section are
greater than the debits calculated for the same annual compliance period according
to paragraph (f) of this section, the owner or operator may bank the extra credits
for use in future compliance periods.
(A) In order to bank credits for use in future compliance periods, the owner or
operator must report the data used to calculate that the extra credits were
generated and certify the accuracy of that data in the Periodic Reports as
specified in Sec. 63.152(c) of this Subpart. These records must be readily
accessible for 5 years after the period in which the credit is available for use as
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section.
(B) The owner or operator may choose to include more than the required number
of credit generating emission points in an average in order to increase the
likelihood of creating bankable credits. However, these additional points are not
required to create bankable credits.
(ii) Banked credits can only be used to comply with the annual requirement
specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. Banked credits cannot be used for
the quarterly requirement specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
(iii) In the Implementation Plan for emissions averaging as specified in Sec.
63.151(c) and (d) of this subpart or the operating permit application as specified
in Sec. 63.152(e) of this subpart, the credit generating emission points must be
capable of generating sufficient credits to offset the debits from the debit
generating emission points under representative operating conditions. The owner or
operator shall not develop an Implementation Plan or operating permit application
for emissions averaging that relies on banked credits to ensure that credits will
exceed debits. If such an averaging plan is submitted, it will not be approved.
(iv) The length of time that banked credits shall be available for use after
the year in which the extra credit was generated is (a range of 2 to 5 years is
being proposed; a single number will be selected at promulgation). If a banked
credit is not used within (2 to 5) years of the year in which it was generated, it
is no longer available for use.
(4) Demonstrate that debits calculated for a quarterly (3- month) period
according to paragraph (f) of this section are not more than (a range of 1.25 to
1.35 is being proposed; a single number will be selected at promulgation) times the
credits for the same period calculated according to paragraph (g) of this section.
Compliance for the quarter shall be determined based on the ratio of credits and
debits from that quarter, {pg 62746} with (25 to 35) percent more debits than
credits allowed on a quarterly basis.
(5) Calculation of monthly credits and debits shall not include periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction as described in the source's startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this part. fn 16
fn 16 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(6) The quarterly and annual credits and debits shall be recorded and reported
in the Periodic Reports as specified in Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart. The
Periodic Reports shall include a certification of compliance with the emissions
averaging provisions.
(f) Debits shall be calculated as follows:
(1) The overall equation for calculating source-wide debits is: {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
Debits and all terms of the equation are in units of megagrams per month, and
EPV sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 process vent (i) that is not
controlled to the level of the reference technology. This is calculated according
to paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(0.02) EPV sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 vent (i) if the reference control
technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions, calculated according to
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
ES sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel (i) that is not
controlled to the level of the reference technology. This is calculated according
to paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(0.05) ES sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel (i) if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions,
calculated according to paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
ETR sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 transfer rack (i) that is not
controlled to the level of the reference technology. This is calculated according
to paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(0.02) ETR sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 transfer rack (i) if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions,
calculated according to paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
EWW sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream (i) that is not
controlled to the level of the reference technology. This is calculated according
to paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
EWW sub ic Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream (i) if the reference
control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions. This is
calculated according to paragraph (f)(5) 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 vessels, transfer
racks, and wastewater.
(2) Emissions from process vents shall be calculated as follows:
(i) For purposes of determining process vent stream flow rate, organic HAP
concentrations, and temperature, the sampling site shall be after the final product
recovery device, if any recovery devices are present, before any combustion device,
and before discharge to the atmosphere. Method 1 or 1A shall be used for selection
of the sampling site.
(ii) The following equation shall be used for each process vent (i) to
calculate EPV sub iu: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
EPV sub iu Uncontrolled process vent emission rate from process vent (i) in
megagrams per month.
Q Vent stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meters per minute) measured using
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
h Monthly hours of operation during which positive flow is present in the vent.
C sub j Concentration (parts per million by volume, dry basis) of organic HAP
compound j as measured by Method 18.
M sub j Molecular weight of organic HAP compound j (gram/gram-mole).
T Vent stream discharge temperature, in degrees C.
n Number of organic HAP compounds.
(A) The values of Q, C sub j, M sub j, and T shall be determined during an
initial performance test conducted under representative operating conditions.
Monthly testing is not required.
(B) If there is a change in capacity utilization other than a change in monthly
operating hours, or if any other change is made to the process or product recovery
equipment or operation such that the previously measured values of Q, C sub j, M
sub j, or T are no longer representative, a new performance test shall be
conducted.
(iii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to calculate EPV sub
iACTUAL:
(A) If the vent is not controlled by a control device or pollution prevention
measure EPV sub iACTUAL EPV sub iu, where EPV sub iu is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the vent is controlled using a control device or a pollution prevention
measure achieving less than the 98-percent reduction level associated with the
reference control technology, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) Percent reduction shall be initially measured according to the procedures
in Sec. 63.116 of this subpart if a combustion device is used. If a non-combustion
control device is used, percent reduction shall be demonstrated by an initial
performance test at the inlet and outlet of the control device or, if testing is
not feasible, by a control design evaluation and documented engineering
calculations.
(2) For process vents, product recovery devices shall not be considered control
devices and cannot be assigned a percent reduction in calculating EPV sub iACTUAL.
The sampling site for measurement of uncontrolled emissions is after the final
product recovery device. However, as provided in Sec. 63.113(a)(3) of this subpart,
a Group 1 process vent may add sufficient product recovery to raise the TRE index
value above 1.0, thereby becoming a Group 2 process vent.
(3) Procedures for calculating the percent reduction of pollution prevention
measures are specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(3) Emissions from storage vessels shall be calculated as follows:
(i) The following equation shall be used for each storage vessel (i) to
calculate ES sub iu:
ES sub iu
L sub B + L sub W / 12
where:
ES sub iu Uncontrolled emissions from a fixed roof vessel having identical
dimensions and vessel color as vessel i, in megagrams per month.
L sub B Breathing loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(i)(A) of this section.
L sub W Working loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(A) Breathing loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
{SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
L sub B Breathing loss emissions (megagrams per year).
M sub v Molecular weight of vapor in storage vessel (pound/pound mole).
P sub A Average atmospheric pressure (pounds per square inch absolute).
P True vapor pressure of the HAP at liquid storage temperature (pounds per
square inch absolute). See Table 20 of this subpart.
D Tank diameter (feet).
H Average vapor space height (feet). Use vessel-specific values or an assumed
value of one-half the height.
sup 6DT Average ambient diurnal temperature change ( degrees F). A typical
value of 20 degrees F may be used.
F sub P Paint factor (dimensionless) from Table 21.
C Adjustment factor for small diameter tanks (dimensionless); use C 1 for
diameter "30 feet; use C 0.0771D-0.0013D sup 2-0.1334 for diameter less than 30
feet.
K sub C Product factor (dimensionless). Use 1.0 for volatile organic HAP's.
(B) Working losses shall be calculated using the following equation:
L sub W 1.089X10sup -8 M sub v(P) (V) (N) (K sub N) (K sub C)
where:
V Tank capacity (gallon).
N Number of turnovers per year.
K sub N Turnover factor (dimensionless).
K sub N
180+N / 6N
for turnovers greater than 36
K sub N 1 for turnovers greater than 36.
M sub v, P, and K sub C as defined in paragraph (A) above.
(ii) The following equations shall be used for each fixed roof storage vessel
(i) to calculate in ES sub iACTUAL, in megagrams per month:
(A) If the vessel is not controlled with an internal floating roof, an external
floating roof, a closed vent system and control device, or another control
technique, ES sub iACTUAL ES sub iu, where ES sub iu is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(B) If the vessel is controlled using a control device or pollution prevention
measure achieving less than the 95 percent reduction level associated with the
reference control technology,
ES sub iACTUAL
ES sub iu * sup 7 A
/
1-Percent reduction / 100
(C) If the vessel is controlled with an internal or external floating roof that
does not meet the specifications of Sec. 63.119 (b), (c), or (d) of this subpart,
ES sub iACTUAL shall be calculated as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) or
(f)(3)(iv) of this section.
(iii) The following equation shall be used for each internal floating roof
vessel (i) that does not meet the specifications of Sec. 63.119(b) or (d) of this
Subpart to calculate ES sub iACTUAL in megagrams per month:
ES sub iACTUAL
L sub W + L sub R + L sub F + L sub D / 12
where:
L sub W Withdrawal loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.
L sub R Rim seal loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
L sub F Fitting loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C) of this section.
L sub D Deck seam loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(D) of this section.
(A) Withdrawal loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
{SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
Q Throughput (gallon per year); (gallon/turnover) * (turnovers per year).
C Shell clingage factor (barrel/1,000 feet sup 2), see Table 22 of this
Subpart.
W sub L Average liquid density (pound/gallon).
D Tank diameter (feet).
N sub c Number of columns (dimensionless), see Table 23 of this subpart.
F sub c Effective column diameter (feet) column perimeter (feet) 3.1416 , see
Table 24 of this subpart.
(B) Rim seal loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
L sub R
K sub sV sup nP * DM sub vK sub c
/
2204.6
where:
M sub v Molecular weight of vapor in storage vessel (pound/pound mole).
P sub A Average atmospheric pressure (pounds per square inch absolute).
P True vapor pressure at liquid storage temperature (pounds per square inch
absolute).
D Tank diameter (feet).
K sub c Product factor (dimensionless); use 1.0 for organic HAP's.
K sub s Seal factor pound-mole/(feet (miles per hour) sup n year) , see Table
25 of this subpart.
V Average wind speed at the source (miles per hour). A value of 10 miles per
hour may be assumed if source-specific data are not available.
n Seal related wind speed exponent (dimensionless), see Table 25 of this
subpart.
P* Vapor pressure function (dimensionless), {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
(C) Fitting loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
Fitting Loss (Mg/yr)
F sub fP * M sub vK sub c
/
2205
where:
F sub f The total deck fitting loss factor (pound mole per year), and {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
N sub Fi Number of fittings of a particular type (dimensionless). N sub Fi is
determined for the specific tank or estimated from Tables 23 and 26 of this
subpart.
K sub Fi Deck fitting loss factor for a particular type fitting (pound mole per
year). K sub Fi is determined for each fitting type from Table 26 of this subpart.
n Number of different types of fittings (dimensionless).
2205 Constant (pound/megagram).
P*, M sub v, K sub c as defined above.
(D) Deck seam loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
Deck Seam Loss (Mg/yr)
K sub DS sub DD sup 2P * M sub vK sub c
/
2204.6
where:
K sub D Deck seam loss factor (pound-mole/feet year).
0.34 for non-welded decks.
0 for welded decks.
S sub D Deck seam length factor (feet/feet sup 2), see Table 27 of this
subpart.
D, P*, M sub v, K sub c as defined above.
(iv) The following equation shall be used for each external floating roof
vessel (i) does not meet the specifications of Sec. 63.119(c) of this Subpart to
calculate ES sub iACTUAL in megagrams per month:
ES sub iACTUAL
L sub W + L sub R + L sub F / 12
where:
L sub W Withdrawal loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(A) of this section.
L sub R Rim seal loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B) of this section.
L sub F Fitting loss emissions in megagrams per year calculated according to
paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(C) of this section.
(A) Withdrawal loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
L sub W 4.28*10sup -4 QCW sub L/D
where:
Q Throughput (gallons per year).
C Shell clingage factor (barrel per 1,000 feet 2 ), see Table 22 of this
subpart.
W sub L Average liquid density (pound/gallon).
D Vessel diameter (feet).
(B) Seal loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
L sub SE K sub sV sup NP*DM sub vK sub c/2205
where:
K sub s Seal factor, see Table 28 of this subpart.
V Average wind speed (miles per hour) at the source. A value of 10 miles per
hour may be assumed if source- specific data are not available.
N Seal wind speed exponent, see Table 28 of this subpart.
P* Dimensionless vapor pressure function as defined in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B)
of this section.
D Vessel diameter in feet.
M sub V Molecular weight of the HAP in pound/pound-mole.
K sub c Dimensionless product factor (use 1.0 for volatile organic HAP's).
2205 Constant (pound/megagram).
(C) Fitting loss emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:
L sub RF F sub FP*M sub vK sub c/2205
where:
F sub F The total deck fitting loss factor (pound mole per year). {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
N sub Fi Number of fittings of a particular type (dimensionless). N sub Fi is
determined for the specific tank or estimated from Tables 29 through 31 of this
subpart.
K sub Fi Deck fitting loss factor for a particular type fitting (pound mole per
year).
K sub Fai+K sub Fbi V sup mi, see Table 29 of this subpart for the appropriate
values of K sub Fa, K sub Fb, and m for each fitting type.
P*, M sub v, K sub c as defined above.
(4) Emissions from transfer racks shall be calculated as follows:
(i) The following equation shall be used for each transfer rack (i) to
calculate ETR sub iu:
ETR sub iu
(1.20X10 sup 6 - sup 7) / SPMG
T
where:
ETR sub iu Uncontrolled transfer emission rate, megagrams per month.
S Saturation factor (see Table 32 of this subpart).
P Weighted average rack vapor pressure of organic HAP's transferred at the rack
during the month, kilopascals.
M Weighted average molecular weight of organic HAP's transferred at the rack
during the month, gram/gram-mole.
G Monthly volume of organic HAP transferred, liters per month.
T Temperature of bulk liquid loaded, sup oKelvin ( sup oC+273).
(ii) The following equation shall be used for each transfer rack (i) to
calculate the weighted average rack vapor pressure (P): {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
P Weighted average rack vapor pressure of organic HAP's transferred at the rack
during the month, kilopascals.
P sub j Vapor pressure of individual organic HAP transferred at the rack,
kilopascals.
G Monthly volume of organic HAP transferred, liters per month.
G sub j Monthly volume of individual organic HAP transferred at the rack,
liters.
n Number of organic HAP's transferred at the rack.
(iii) The following equation shall be used for each transfer rack (i) to
calculate the weighted average rack molecular weight (M): {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
M Weighted average molecular weight of organic HAP transferred at the rack
during a month, gram/gram- mole.
M sub j Molecular weight of individual organic HAP transferred at the rack,
gram/gram-mole.
G sub j Monthly volume of individual organic HAP transferred at the rack,
liters per month.
n Number of organic HAP's transferred at the rack.
(iv) The following procedures and equations shall be used to calculate ETR sub
iACTUAL:
(A) If the transfer rack is not controlled, ETR sub iACTUAL ETR sub iu, where
ETR sub iu is calculated using the equations under paragraphs (f)(4)(i),
(f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B) If the transfer rack is controlled using a control device or a pollution
prevention measure achieving less than 98 percent reduction level associated with
the reference control technology level, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) The percent reduction for a combustion or recovery device shall be
initially measured according to the equations and methods specified in Sec.
63.128(a) of this Subpart. As other control techniques are used, percent reduction
shall be demonstrated by an initial performance test or by a control design
analysis and documented engineering calculations.
(2) Procedures for calculating the percent reduction for pollution prevention
measures are specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(5) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated as follows: In paragraph
(f)(5) of this section, the terms wastewater and wastewater stream are used to mean
wastewater.
(i) The following equation shall be used for each wastewater stream (i) to
calculate EWW sub ic: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
EWW sub ic Monthly wastewater stream emission rate if wastewater stream (i) is
controlled by the reference control technology, in megagrams per month.
Q sub i Average flow rate for wastewater stream (i), as determined by the
procedure in Sec. 63.144(e)(3) of this subpart, in liters per minute.
H sub i Number of hours during the month that wastewater stream (i) was
discharged, in hours per month.
Fr sub m Strippability factor of HAP compound (m) in wastewater, from Table 33
of this subpart, dimensionless.
Fe sub m Fraction emitted of HAP compound (m) in wastewater from Table 33 of
this subpart, dimensionless.
s Total number of organic HAP compounds in wastewater stream (i).
HAP sub im Average organic HAP concentration of compound (m) in wastewater
stream (i), in parts per million by weight, as determined for the point of
generation using the sampling procedure in Sec. 63.144(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of
this subpart. To analyze the samples collected, (1) a test method or results from a
test method that measures organic HAP concentrations in the wastewater, and that
has been validated pursuant to section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 of appendix A of
this Part may be used; or (2) the procedures in Sec. 63.144(b)(3)(iii)(A) of this
Subpart may be used to determine the term C sub im described below, and then HAP
sub im may be calculated from it using the following equation: HAP sub im C sub
im/Fm sub m, where Fm sub m for compound m is obtained from Table 13 of this
Subpart.
C sub im Average VOHAP concentration of HAP compound (m) in wastewater stream
(i), as determined for the point of generation according to the procedures in Sec.
63.144(b)(3) of this Subpart, in parts per million by weight.
(A) Values for Q sub i, C sub im, and HAP sub im may be determined during an
initial performance test conducted under representative conditions. The average
value obtained from three test runs shall be used. Monthly testing is not required.
(B) If there is a change to the process or operation such that the previously
measured values of Q sub i, C sub im, and HAP sub im are no longer representative,
a new performance test shall be conducted.
(C) As an alternative to the performance testing specified in paragraphs
(f)(5)(i) (A) and (B) of this section, Q sub i may be determined from records or
process knowledge as specified in Sec. 63.144(a), and C sub im and HAP sub im may
be determined through process knowledge as specified in Sec. 63.144(b) of this
Subpart.
(ii) The following equation shall be used to calculate EWW sub iACTUAL for each
wastewater stream (i) which is managed in any wastewater tank, surface impoundment,
container, individual drain system, or oil-water separator not meeting the
requirements of Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this Subpart, respectively, or any
other waste management unit or treatment process not meeting the requirements of
Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
sup 7aEWW sub iACTUAL Monthly wastewater stream emission rate if wastewater
stream (i) is not controlled to the level of the reference control technology, in
megagrams per month.
Q sub i, H sub i, s, F sub em, and HAP sub im are as defined and determined
according to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section.
(iii) The following equation shall be used to calculate EWW sub iACTUAL for
each wastewater stream (i) for which all wastewater tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, individual drain systems, and oil-water separators used to manage the
wastewater stream meet the requirements of Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this
subpart and any other waste management unit or treatment process meets the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart, and wastewater stream (i) is not
controlled to the level of the reference control technology: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S)
IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
EWW sub iACTUAL Monthly wastewater stream emission rate if wastewater stream
(i) is not controlled to the level of the reference control technology, in
megagrams per month.
PR sub im The efficiency of the treatment process, or series of treatment
processes, which treat wastewater stream (i), in reducing the emission potential of
organic HAP compound (m) in wastewater, dimensionless, as calculated by:
PR sub im
HAP sub im-in-HAP sub im-out / HAP sub im-in
where:
HAP sub im-in Average concentration of HAP compound (m), defined and determined
according to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, in the wastewater entering the
first treatment process in the series.
HAP sub im-out Average concentration of HAP compound (m), defined and
determined according to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, in the wastewater
exiting the last treatment process in the series.
R sub i Organic reduction efficiency of the device used to control any vapor
streams emitted and collected from wastewater stream (i) during treatment, as
determined according to the procedures in Sec. 63.145(f) of this subpart.
Q sub i, H sub i, s, F sub em, and HAP sub im are as defined and determined
according to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section. Values of C sub m- in, C sub m-
out, C sub im, and HAP sub im may be measured during an initial test or determined
based on knowledge as provided in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this
section.
(g) Credits shall be calculated as follows:
(1) The overall equation for calculating source-wide credits is: {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
Credits and all terms of the equation are in units of megagrams per month, and
the baseline date is November 15, 1990, except that for a pollution prevention
measure initiated after 1987 or a control applied as part of the early reduction
program or the 33/50 program, the baseline date is prior to initiation of the
pollution prevention measure or the early reduction or 33/50 program control
strategy, and
D Discount factor (A range of 0.8 to 1.0 is proposed. A single number will be
selected at promulgation).
EPV1 sub iACTUAL Emissions for each Group 1 process vent (i) that is controlled
to a level more stringent than the reference control technology, calculated
according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(0.02) EPV1 sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 process vent (i) if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions. EPV1iu
is calculated according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
EPV2 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 2 process vent (i) that is
controlled, calculated according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
EPV2 sub iBASE Emissions from each Group 2 process vent (i) at the baseline
date, as calculated in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
ES1 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel (i) that is
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control technology,
calculated according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(0.05) ES1 sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel (i) if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions. ES1
sub iu is calculated according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
ES2 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel (i) that is
controlled, calculated according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
ES2 sub iBASE Emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel (i) at the baseline
date, as calculated in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
ETR1 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 transfer rack (i) that is
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control technology,
calculated according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
(0.02) ETR1 sub iu Emissions from each Group 1 transfer rack (i) if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions. ETR1
sub iu is calculated according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
ETR2 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 2 transfer rack (i) that are
controlled, calculated according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
ETR2 sub iBASE Emissions from each Group 2 transfer rack (i) at the baseline
date, as calculated in paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
EWW1 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream (i) that is
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control technology,
calculated according to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
EWW1 sub ic Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream (i) if the reference
control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions, calculated
according to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
EWW2 sub iACTUAL Emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream (i) that is
controlled, calculated according to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
EWW2 sub iBASE Emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream (i) at the
baseline date, calculated according to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
n Number of Group 1 emission points included in the emissions average. The
value of n is not necessarily the same for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
racks, and wastewater.
m Number of Group 2 emission points included in the emissions average. The
value of m is not necessarily the same for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
racks, and wastewater.
(2) Emissions from process vents shall be determined as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 process vents, EPV1 sub iu, shall be
calculated according to the procedures and equations in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and
(f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to calculate actual
emissions from Group 1 process vents, EPV1 sub iACTUAL,
(A) If a Group 1 process vent is controlled using a technology with an approved
nominal efficiency greater than 98 percent or a pollution prevention measure
achieving greater than 98 percent emission reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(B) The nominal efficiency shall be determined as described in paragraph (h) of
this section for a control device and paragraph (i) of this section for a pollution
prevention measure.
(C) Combustion devices shall not be attributed a nominal efficiency greater
than 98 percent, unless they have been assigned a higher nominal efficiency
according to the procedures in paragraph (h) of this section.
(iii) The following procedures shall be used to calculate actual emissions from
Group 2 process vents, EPV2 sub iACTUAL:
(A) If a Group 2 process vent is controlled by a control device, a recovery
device applied after 1987 as a pollution prevention project, or a pollution
prevention measure achieving a percent reduction less than or equal to 98 percent
reduction level associated with the reference control technology, {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) EPV2 sub iu shall be calculated according to the equations and procedures
in paragraph (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A)(3) below.
(2) The percent reduction shall be calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A)(4) below.
(3) If a recovery device was added as part of a pollution prevention project
initiated after 1987, EPV2 sub iu shall be calculated prior to the recovery device.
The equation in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section shall be used to calculate
EPV2 sub iu; however, the sampling site for measurement of vent stream flow rate,
organic HAP concentration, and temperature shall be at the inlet of the recovery
device.
(4) If a recovery device was added as part of a pollution prevention project
initiated after 1987, the percent reduction shall be demonstrated by conducting a
performance test at the inlet and outlet of the recovery device.
(B) If a Group 2 process vent is controlled using a technology with an approved
nominal efficiency greater than 98 percent or a pollution prevention measure
achieving greater than 98 percent reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
(1) The nominal efficiency shall be determined as described in paragraph (h) of
this section for a control device or in paragraph (i) of this section for a
pollution prevention measure.
(2) Combustion devices shall not be attributed a nominal efficiency greater
than 98 percent, unless they have been assigned a higher nominal efficiency
according to the procedures in paragraph (h) of this section.
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 process vents at baseline, EPV2i sub iBASE, shall
be calculated as follows:
(A) If the process vent was uncontrolled on November 15, 1990, EPV sub 2iBASE
EPV2 sub iu and shall be calculated according to the procedures and equations in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the process vent was controlled on November 15, 1990, and this control
was not applied under either the 33/50 or the early reduction program and was not
the result of a pollution prevention measure, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
Where EPV2 sub iu is calculated according to the equations in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this section. The percent reduction shall be calculated
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(B) (1), (2), and
(3) of this section.
(C) If a recovery device was added to a process vent as part of a pollution
prevention project initiated after 1987, EPV2 sub iBASE EPV2 sub iu, where EPV2 sub
iu is calculated according to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
(3) Emissions from storage vessels shall be determined as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 storage vessels, ES1 sub iu, shall be
calculated according to the equation in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(ii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to calculate actual
emissions from Group 1 storage vessels, ES1 sub iACTUAL,
(A) If a Group 1 storage vessel is controlled using a technology with an
approved nominal efficiency greater than 95 percent or a pollution prevention
measure achieving greater than 95 percent emission reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S)
IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(c) of this section, the nominal
efficiency shall be determined as described in paragraph (h) of this section for a
control device and paragraph (i) of this section for a pollution prevention
measure.
(C) If a Group 1 Storage Vessel is controlled using a closed vent system and
control device that is demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent emission
reduction, then the 98 percent can be used as the nominal efficiency in the
equation in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, and the owner or operator is
not required to apply for a nominal efficiency according to paragraph (h) of this
section.
(1) To demonstrate that 98 percent emission reduction is achieved, the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance test according to the procedures in Sec.
63.116 of this Subpart or use a design analysis. If a performance test is used,
sampling sites shall be located at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
(2) The owner or operator shall report the results of the performance test and
establish the range for the monitored parameter(s) in the Notification of
Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart.
(iii) The following procedures shall be used to calculate actual emissions from
Group 2 storage vessels, ES2 sub iACTUAL:
(A) If a Group 2 storage vessel is controlled using a closed vent system and
control device or a pollution prevention measure achieving a percent reduction less
than or equal to the 95 percent reduction level associated with the reference
control technology, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where ES sub iu is calculated according to the equations and procedures in
paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(B) If a Group 2 storage vessel is controlled with an internal or external
floating roof, ES2 sub iACTUAL shall be calculated as specified in paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) or (f)(3)(iv) of this section.
(C) If a Group 2 storage vessel is controlled using a technology with an
approved nominal efficiency greater than 95 percent or a pollution prevention
measure achieving greater than 95 percent reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) The nominal efficiency for a control device shall be determined as
described in paragraph (h) of this section, except as provided in paragraph
(g)(3)(iii)(D) of this section.
(2) The nominal efficiency for a pollution prevention measure shall be
determined as described in paragraph (i) of this section.
(D) If a Group 2 Storage Vessel is controlled using a closed vent system and
control device that is demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent emission
reduction, then the 98 percent can be used as the nominal efficiency in the
equation in paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, and the owner or operator is
not required to apply for a nominal efficiency according to paragraph (h) of this
section.
(1) To demonstrate that 98 percent emission reduction is achieved, the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance test according to the procedures in Sec.
63.116 of this Subpart or use a design analysis. If a performance test is used,
sampling sites shall be located at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
(2) The owner or operator shall report the results of the performance test and
establish the range for the monitored parameter(s) in the Notification of
Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.152(b) of this Subpart.
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 storage vessels at baseline, ES2 sub iBASE, shall
be calculated as follows:
(A) If the vessel was not controlled with an internal floating roof, an
external floating roof, a closed vent system and control device, or another control
technique on November 15, 1990, ES2 sub iBASE ES2 sub iu and shall be calculated
according to the procedures and equations in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(B) If the storage vessel was controlled on November 15, 1990, and this control
was not applied under either the 33/50 or the early reduction program and was not
the result of a pollution prevention measure,
(1) The equations in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section shall be used to
calculate ES2 sub iBASE for vessels controlled with an internal floating roof.
(2) The equations in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section shall be used to
calculate ES2 sub iBASE for vessels controlled with an external floating roof.
(3) The following equations shall be used to calculate ES2 sub iBASE for
vessels controlled with a closed vent system and control device, {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where ES sub iu is calculated according to the equations in paragraph (f)(3)(i)
of this section.
(4) Emissions from transfer racks shall be determined as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 transfer racks, ETR1 sub iu, shall be
calculated as described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of
this section.
(ii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to calculate actual
emissions from Group 1 transfer racks, ETR1 sub iACTUAL:
(A) If a Group 1 transfer rack is controlled using a technology, other than the
reference control technology, with an approved nominal efficiency greater than 98
percent or a pollution prevention measure achieving greater than 98 percent
emission reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(B) The nominal efficiency shall be determined as described in paragraph (h) of
this section for a control device other than the reference technology and paragraph
(i) of this section for a pollution prevention measure.
(C) Combustion devices, carbon adsorbers, absorbers, and condensers shall not
be attributed a nominal efficiency greater than 98 percent.
(iii) The following procedures shall be used to calculate actual emissions from
Group 2 transfer racks, ETR2 sub iACTUAL:
(A) If a Group 2 transfer rack is controlled by a control device or a pollution
prevention measure achieving a percent reduction less than or equal to the 98
percent level associated with the reference control technology, {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) ETR sub iu shall be calculated according to the equations and procedures in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this section.
(2) The percent reduction shall be calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (f)(4)(iv)(B) (1) and (2) of this section.
(B) If a Group 2 transfer rack is controlled using a technology, other than the
reference control technology, with an approved nominal efficiency greater than 98
percent or a pollution prevention measure achieving greater than 98 percent
reduction, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(1) The nominal efficiency shall be determined as described in paragraph (h) of
this section for a control device or in paragraph (i) of this section for a
pollution prevention measure.
(2) Combustion devices, carbon adsorbers, absorbers, and condensers shall not
be attributed a nominal efficiency greater than 98 percent.
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 transfer racks at baseline, ETR2 sub iBASE, shall
be calculated as follows:
(A) If the transfer rack was uncontrolled on November 15, 1990, ETR2 sub iBASE
ETR2 sub iu and shall be calculated according to the procedures and equations in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B) If the transfer rack was controlled on November 15, 1990, and this control
was not applied under either the 33/50 or the early reduction program and was not
the result of a pollution prevention measure, {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where ETR2 sub iu is calculated according to the equations in paragraphs
(f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this section. Percent reduction shall be
calculated according to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(iv)(B)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(5) Emissions from wastewater shall be determined as follows. In paragraph
(g)(5) of this section, the terms wastewater and wastewater stream are used to mean
process wastewater.
(i) EWW1 sub ic shall be calculated according to the equation for EWW sub ic in
paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section.
(ii) EWW2 sub iBASE shall be calculated according to the equation for EWW sub
iACTUAL in paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this section for each wastewater stream (i),
which, on the baseline date specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, was
untreated, or which was managed either in a wastewater tank, surface impoundment,
container, individual drain system or oil-water separator not meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of this subpart, respectively, or
in any other waste management unit or treatment process not meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart.
(iii) EWW2 sub iBASE shall be calculated according to the equation for EWW sub
iACTUAL in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section for each wastewater stream (i),
for which all tanks, surface impoundments, containers, individual drain systems and
oil-water separators used to manage the wastewater stream met the requirements of
Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of this subpart, respectively, and for which all
other waste management units or treatment processes used to manage the wastewater
stream met the requirements of Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart on the baseline date
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iv) EWW2 sub iACTUAL shall be calculated as follows:
(A) EWW2 sub iACTUAL shall be calculated according to the equation for EWW sub
iACTUAL in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section for each wastewater stream (i)
which is controlled to a level less stringent than, or equivalent to, the reference
control technology level. Group 2 streams are not considered to be controlled if
they are not treated by a treatment process, or if they are managed in any
wastewater tank, surface impoundment, container, individual drain system, or oil-
water separator not meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of
this subpart, respectively, or in any other waste management unit or treatment
process not meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart.
(B) If a Group 2 wastewater stream is controlled to a level more stringent than
the level of the reference control technology, the procedures for calculating EWW1
sub iACTUAL in paragraph (g)(5)(v) of this section shall be used to calculate EWW2
sub iACTUAL.
(v) The following equations for EWW1 sub iACTUAL shall be used to calculate
emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream (i) that is controlled to a level
more stringent than the reference control technology. Group 1 streams are not
considered to be controlled to or above the level of the reference control
technology if they are managed in any wastewater tank, surface impoundment,
container, individual drain system, or oil-water separator not meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of this subpart, respectively, or
in any other waste management unit or treatment process not meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.138(h) of this subpart.
(A) If the Group 1 wastewater stream (i) is controlled using a treatment
process or series of treatment processes which achieve an approved nominal
reduction efficiency in the total VOHAP concentration of stream (i) greater than
that which would be achieved using the design steam stripper specified in Sec.
63.138(f) of this Subpart, but the control device used to reduce HAP emissions from
the vapor stream(s) vented from the treatment process(es) achieves an efficiency
equal to the 95 percent of the reference control technology, the following formula
shall be used: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where all terms are as defined and determined in paragraph (f)(5) of this
section.
(B) If the Group 1 wastewater stream (i) is not controlled using a treatment
process or series of treatment processes which achieves a total VOHAP concentration
reduction greater than that which would be achieved using the design steam stripper
specified in Sec. 63.138(f) of this Subpart, but the vapor stream(s) vented from
the treatment process(es) are controlled using a device, other than the reference
control technology, for which EPA has approved a nominal efficiency greater than 95
percent, the following formula shall be used: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where all terms other than nominal efficiency are as defined and determined in
paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(C) If the Group 1 wastewater stream (i) is controlled using a treatment
process or series of treatment processes which achieves a total VOHAP concentration
reduction greater than that which would be achieved using the design steam stripper
specified in Sec. 63.138(f) of this Subpart, and the vapor stream(s) vented from
the treatment process are controlled using a device, other than the reference
control technology, with an approved nominal efficiency greater than 95 percent,
the following formula shall be used: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where all terms other than nominal efficiency are as defined and determined in
paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(D) The nominal efficiency for a treatment process or control device shall be
determined as described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(h) The following procedures shall be followed to establish a nominal
efficiency for any control technology achieving greater emission reduction than the
percentage efficiency assigned to the reference control technology in Sec. 63.111
of this subpart. The procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section
shall be followed for control technologies that are different in use or design from
the reference control technologies. The procedures in paragraph (h)(6) of this
section shall be followed for process vents controlled by reference control
technologies that can be demonstrated to consistently achieve a higher control
efficiency than that which has been assigned by the proposed rule to that
particular type of device.
(1) The owner or operator seeking permission to take credit for use of a
technology that is different in use or design from the reference control technology
shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv)
of this section in writing to the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards:
(i) Emission stream characteristics of each emission point to which the control
technology is or will be applied including the kind of emission points, flow,
organic HAP concentration, and all other stream characteristics necessary to design
the control technology or determine its performance,
(ii) Description of the control technology including design specifications,
(iii) Documentation demonstrating to the Director's satisfaction the control
efficiency of the control technology. This may include performance test data
collected using an appropriate EPA method or any other method validated according
to Method 301 of appendix A of this part. If it is infeasible to obtain test data,
documentation may include a design analysis and engineering calculations. The basis
of the calculational procedures and all inputs and assumptions made in the
calculations shall be documented.
(iv) A description of the parameter or parameters to be monitored to ensure
that the control technology will be operated in conformance with its design and an
explanation of the criteria used for selection of that parameter (or parameters).
(2) The Director shall determine within 120 days whether an application
presents sufficient information to determine nominal efficiency. The Director
reserves the right to request specific data in addition to the items listed in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(3) The Director shall determine within 120 days of the submittal of sufficient
data whether a device shall have a nominal control efficiency and the level of that
nominal efficiency. If, in the Director's judgment, the control technology achieves
a level of emission reduction greater than the reference control technology for a
particular kind of emission point, the Director will publish a Federal Register
notice establishing a nominal efficiency for the control technology.
(4) The Director may condition permission to take emission credits for use of
the control technology on requirements that may be necessary to ensure operation
and maintenance to achieve the specified nominal efficiency.
(5) In those cases where the owner or operator is seeking permission to take
credit for use of a technology that is different in use or design from the
reference control technology and the different technology will be used in no more
than three applications, the information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(h)(1)(iv) can be submitted to the operating permit authority for the source
instead of the Director. In these instances, use and conditions for use of the
different technology can be approved as part of an operating permit application or
modification. In these instances, a Federal Register notice is not required to
establish the nominal efficiency for the different technology.
(i) If, in reviewing the application, the operating permit authority believes
the technology has broad applicability for use by other sources, the authority
shall submit the information provided in the application to the Director of the EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The Director shall review the
technology for broad applicability and may publish a Federal Register notice;
however, this EPA review shall not affect the operating permit authority's approval
of the nominal efficiency of the technology for the specific application.
(ii) If, in reviewing an application for a process vent control, the operating
permit authority determines that the technology is not different in use and design
from the reference control technology, the authority shall submit the application
to the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The
procedures in paragraph (h)(6) of this section shall be followed for submission of
information, review, and approval of the nominal efficiency. If, in reviewing an
application for a control for an emission point other than a process vent, the
operating permit authority determines the technology is not different in use or
design from the reference control technology and is not a closed vent system for a
storage vessel, the authority shall deny the application.
(6) An owner or operator seeking permission to take credit for a process vent
using reference control technology that achieves a percent emission reduction
efficiency higher than the percent assigned to the reference control technology in
Sec. 63.111 shall submit the information in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) through (h)(6)(iv)
of this section to the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. The procedures in paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(4) of this section shall
be followed for review and approval of the nominal efficiency of the control
technology in the specified application.
(i) Emission stream characteristics of each process vent to which the control
technology is or will be applied including the flow, organic HAP concentration, and
all other vent stream characteristics necessary to design the control technology or
determine its performance,
(ii) Description of the control technology including design specifications,
(iii) Documentation demonstrating to the Director's satisfaction that the
technology in the intended application achieves 99.9 percent or greater emission
reduction. This documentation shall include performance test data collected using
an appropriate EPA method or any other method or data validated according to Method
301 of appendix A of this part.
(iv) A plan for instituting continuous emissions monitoring to demonstrate that
99.9 percent emission reduction is achieved on a continuous basis.
(i) The following procedures shall be used for calculating the efficiency
(percent reduction) of pollution prevention measures:
(1) A pollution prevention measure is any practice which meets the criteria of
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A pollution prevention measure is any practice which results in a lesser
quantity of organic HAP emissions released to the atmosphere prior to out-of-
process recycling, treatment, or control of emissions, while the same quantity of
the same product is produced.
(ii) Pollution prevention measures may include substitution of non-toxic for
toxic feedstocks in making a product; alterations to the production process to
reduce the volume of materials released to the environment; equipment
modifications; housekeeping measures; and in- process recycling that returns waste
materials directly to production as raw materials.
(2) The emission reduction efficiency of pollution prevention measures
implemented after 1987 can be used in calculating the actual emissions from an
emission point in the debit and credit equations in Sec. 63.150 (f) and (g) of this
subpart.
(i) For pollution prevention measures, the percent reduction used in the
equations in paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5) of this section, and
paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(5) of this section, is the percent
difference between the monthly organic HAP emissions for each emission point after
the pollution prevention measure for the most recent month versus monthly emissions
from the same emission point before the pollution prevention measure, adjusted by
the volume of product produced during the two monthly periods.
(ii) The following equation shall be used to calculate the percent reduction of
a pollution prevention measure for each emission point. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
Percent reduction Efficiency of pollution prevention measure (percent organic
HAP reduction).
E sub B Monthly emissions before the pollution prevention measure, determined
as specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.
E sub pp Monthly emissions after the pollution prevention measure, as
determined for the most recent month, determined as specified in paragraph
(i)(2)(ii)(C) or (D) of this section.
P sub B Monthly production before the pollution prevention measure, during the
same period over which E sub B is calculated.
P sub pp Monthly production after the pollution prevention measure, as
determined for the most recent month.
(A) The monthly emissions before the pollution prevention measure, E sub B,
shall be determined in a manner consistent with the equations and procedures in
paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this section for process vents, storage
vessels, and transfer operations.
(B) For wastewater, E sub B shall be calculated as follows. In paragraph
(i)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the terms wastewater and wastewater stream are used
to mean process wastewater. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
n Number of wastewater streams.
Q sub Bi Average flow rate for wastewater stream (i) before the pollution
prevention measure, as determined by the procedure in Sec. 63.144(e)(3) of this
Subpart, liters per minute, before implementation of the pollution prevention
measure.
H sub Bi Number of hours per month that wastewater stream (i) was discharged
before the pollution prevention measure, hours per month.
s Total number of organic HAP compounds in wastewater stream (i).
Fe sub m Fraction emitted of HAP compound (m) in wastewater from Table 33 of
this Subpart, dimensionless.
HAP sub Bim Average organic HAP concentration of compound (m) in wastewater
stream (i), defined and determined according to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this
section, before the pollution prevention measure, in parts per million by weight,
as measured before the implementation of the pollution measure.
(1) Values for Q sub Bi and HAP sub Bim may be determined during an initial
performance test conducted under representative conditions, or
(2) Values for Q sub Bi may be determined from records as specified in Sec.
63.144(a) of this subpart, and values for HAP sub Bim may be determined through
process knowledge as specified in Sec. 63.144(b) of this subpart.
(C) If the pollution prevention measure was implemented prior to the effective
date of the regulation, records may be used to determine E sub B.
(D) The monthly emissions after the pollution prevention measure, E sub pp, may
be determined by testing or by design analysis and documented engineering
calculations. Once an emissions to production ratio has been established, this can
be used to estimate monthly emissions from monthly production records.
(E) For wastewater, E sub pp shall be calculated using the following equation.
In paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(E) of this section, the terms wastewater and wastewater
stream are used to mean process wastewater. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
where:
n, Q sub ppi, H sub ppi, s, Fe sub m, and HAP sub ppim are defined and
determined as described above under the definition of E sub B, except that Q sub
ppi, H sub ppi, and HAP sub ppim shall be determined after the pollution prevention
measure has been implemented.
(iii) All equations, calculations, test procedures, test results, and other
information used to determine the percent reduction achieved by a pollution
prevention measure for each emission point shall be fully documented.
(iv) The same pollution prevention measure may reduce emissions from multiple
emission points. In such cases, the percent reduction in emissions for each
emission point must be calculated.
(v) For the purposes of the equations in paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and
(g)(5) of this section, used to calculate credits for emission points controlled
more stringently than the reference technology in paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(4), and (g)(5) of this section, the nominal efficiency of a pollution
prevention measure is equivalent to the percent reduction of the pollution
prevention measure. When a pollution prevention measure is used, the owner or
operator of a source is not required to apply to the Director for a nominal
efficiency and is not subject to paragraph (h) of this section.
Table 20.- Average Storage Temperature (T sub S) as a Function
of Tank Paint Color
Tank color White
Average Storage Temp. (T sub S) T sub A sup a + 0
Tank color Aluminum
Average Storage Temp. (T sub S) T sub A + 2.5
Tank color Gray
Average Storage Temp. (T sub S) T sub A + 3.5
Tank color Black
Average Storage Temp. (T sub S) T sub A + 5.0
sup a T sub A is the average annual ambient temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit.
Table 21.-Paint Factors for Fixed Roof Tanks
Tank color
Roof White
Shell White
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.00
Poor 1.15
Tank color
Roof Aluminum (specular)
Shell White
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.04
Poor 1.18
Tank color
Roof White
Shell Aluminum (specular)
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.16
Poor 1.24
Tank color
Roof Aluminum (specular)
Shell Aluminum (specular)
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.20
Poor 1.29
Tank color
Roof White
Shell Aluminum (diffuse)
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.30
Poor 1.38
Tank color
Roof Aluminum (diffuse)
Shell Aluminum (diffuse)
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.39
Poor 1.46
Tank color
Roof White
Shell Gray
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.30
Poor 1.38
Tank color
Roof Light gray
Shell Light gray
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.33
Poor 1.44
Tank color
Roof Medium gray
Shell Medium gray
Paint factors (F sup p) paint condition
Good 1.40
Poor 1.58
Table 22.- Average Clingage Factors (C) sup a
Liquid Gasoline
Shell condition
Light rust sup b 0.0015
Dense rust 0.0075
Gunite lined 0.15
Liquid Single component stocks
Shell condition
Light rust sup b 0.0015
Dense rust 0.0075
Gunite lined 0.15
Liquid Crude oil
Shell condition
Light rust sup b 0.0060
Dense rust 0.030
Gunite lined 0.60
sup a Units for average clingage factors are barrels per 1,000
square feet.
sup b If no specific information is available, these values can
be assumed to represent the most common condition of tanks
currently in use.
Table 23.- Typical Number of Columns as a Function of Tank
Diameter for Internal Floating Roof Tanks With Column Supported
Fixed Roofs sup a
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 0 < D > 85
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 1
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 85 < D > 100
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 6
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 100 < D > 120
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 7
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 120 < D > 135
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 8
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 135 < D > 150
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 9
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 150 < D > 170
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 16
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 170 < D > 190
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 19
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 190 < D > 220
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 22
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 220 < D > 235
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 31
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 235 < D > 270
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 37
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 270 < D > 275
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 43
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 275 < D > 290
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 49
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 290 < D > 330
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 61
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 330 < D > 360
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 71
Tank diameter range (D in feet) 360 < D > 400
Typical number of columns, (N sub c) 81
sup a Data in this table should not supersede information on
actual tanks.
Table 24.- Effective Column Diameter (F sub c)
Column type 9-inch by 7-inch built-up columns
F sub c (feet) 1.1
Column type 8-inch-diameter pipe columns
F sub c (feet) 0.7
Column type No construction details known
F sub c (feet) 1.0
Table 25.- Seal Related Factors for Internal Floating Roof
Vessels
Seal type
Liquid mounted resilient seal:
Primary seal only
K sub S 3.0
n 0
With rim-mounted secondary seal sup a
K sub S 1.6
n 0
Vapor mounted resilient seal:
Primary seal only
K sub S 6.7
n 0
With rim-mounted secondary seal sup a
K sub S 2.5
n 0
sup a If vessel-specific information is not available about the
secondary seal, assume only a primary seal is present.
Table 26.- Summary of Internal Floating Deck Fitting Loss
Factors (K sub F) and Typical Number of Fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Access hatch
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) 1
Bolted cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 1.6
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 11
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b25
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Automatic gauge float well
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) 1
Bolted cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 5.1
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 15
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b28
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Column well
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) ( sup e)
Builtup column-sliding cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 33
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Builtup column-sliding cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup c47
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Pipe column-flexible fabric sleeve seal
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 10
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Pipe column-sliding cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 19
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Pipe column-sliding cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 32
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Ladder well
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) 1
Sliding cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 56
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Sliding cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b76
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Roof leg or hanger well
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) sup c(5 + D/10 + D sup
2/600)
Adjustable
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b7.9
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Fixed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 0
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Sample pipe or well
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) 1
Slotted pipe-sliding cover, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 44
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Slotted pipe-sliding cover, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 57
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Sample well-slit fabric seal, 10 percent open area
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b12
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Deck fitting type Stub drain, 1-in diameter sup d
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 1.2
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) sup c(D sup 2/125)
Deck fitting type Vacuum breaker
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a
Typical number of fittings (N sub F) 1
Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a sup b0.7
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
Deck fitting loss factor (K sub F) sup a 0.9
Typical number of fittings (N sub F)
sup a Units for K sub F are pound-moles per year.
sup b If no specific information is available, this value can be
assumed to represent the most common/typical deck fittings
currently used.
sup c D Tank diameter (feet).
sup d Not used on welded contact internal floating decks.
sup e See Table 23.
Table 27.- Deck Seam Length Factors sup a (S sub D) for
Internal Floating Roof Tanks
Deck construction
Continuous sheet construction sup b
5-feet wide sheets
Typical deck seam length factor sup c0.2
6-feet wide sheets
Typical deck seam length factor 0.17
7-feet wide sheets
Typical deck seam length factor 0.14
Panel construction sup d
5X7.5 feet rectangular
Typical deck seam length factor 0.33
5X12 feet rectangular
Typical deck seam length factor 0.28
sup a Deck seam loss applies to bolted decks only. Units for S
sub D are feet per square feet.
sup b S sub D 1/W, where W sheet width (feet).
sup c If no specific information is available, these factors can
be assumed to represent the most common bolted decks currently in
use.
sup d S sub D (L + W)/LW, where W panel width (feet), and L panel
length (feet).
Table 28.- Seal Related Factors For External Floating Roof
Vessels
Seal type
Metallic shoe seal:
Primary seal only
Welded vessels
K sub S 1.2
N 1.5
Riveted vessels
K sub S 1.3
N 1.5
With shoe-mounted secondary seal
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.8
N 1.2
Riveted vessels
K sub S 1.4
N 1.2
With rim-mounted secondary seal
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.2
N 1.0
Riveted vessels
K sub S 0.2
N 1.6
Liquid mounted resilient seal:
Primary seal only
Welded vessels
K sub S 1.1
N 1.0
Riveted vessels
K sub S sup a NA
N NA
With weather shield
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.8
N 0.9
Riveted vessels
K sub S NA
N NA
With rim-mounted secondary seal
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.7
N 0.4
Riveted vessels
K sub S NA
N NA
Vapor mounted resilient seal:
Primary seal only
Welded vessels
K sub S 1.2
N 2.3
Riveted vessels
K sub S NA
N NA
With weather shield
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.9
N 2.2
Riveted vessels
K sub S NA
N NA
With rim-mounted secondary seal
Welded vessels
K sub S 0.2
N 2.6
Riveted vessels
K sub S NA
N NA
sup a NA Not applicable.
Table 29.- Roof Fitting Loss Factors, sup a K sub Fa , K sub
Fb , and m, and Typical Number of Roof Fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Access hatch (24-in-
diameter well)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) ( sup 2 c)0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T 1.
Bolted cover, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 2.7
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 7.1
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 2.9
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.41
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Unslotted guide-pole
well (8-in-diameter unslotted pole, 21-in-diameter well)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 6.7
m (dimensionless) 0.98
Typical number of fittings, N sub T 1.
Ungasketed sliding cover
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 3.0
m (dimensionless) ( sup 2 c)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Gasketed sliding cover
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Slotted guide-
pole/sample well (8-in-diameter unslotted pole, 21-in-diameter
well)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T ( sup 2 d).
Ungasketed sliding cover, without float
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 310
m (dimensionless) 1.2
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Ungasketed sliding cover, with float
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 29
m (dimensionless) 2.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Gasketed sliding cover, without float
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 260
m (dimensionless) 1.2
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Gasketed sliding cover, with float
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 8.5
m (dimensionless) 2.4
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Gauge-float well (20-
inch diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 2.3
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 5.9
m (dimensionless) ( sup 2 c).0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T 1.
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 2.4
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.34
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Bolted cover, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Gauge-hatch/sample well
(8-inch diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.95
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.14
m (dimensionless) ( sup 2 c)1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T 1.
Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.91
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 2.4
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Vacuum breaker (10-
inch-diameter well)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 1.2
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.17
m (dimensionless) ( sup 2 c)1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T N sub F7 (Table-30).
Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 1.2
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 3.0
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Roof drain (3-inch
diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T N sub F7 (Table-30).
Open
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 7.0
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T ( sup 2 c)1.4
90 percent closed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.51
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.81
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Roof leg (3-inch
diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T N sub F8 (Table-31 sup
f).
Adjustable, pontoon area
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 1.5
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.20
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T sup c1.0
Adjustable, center area
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.25
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.06
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T sup c1.0
Adjustable, double-deck roofs
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) .0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.06
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fixed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) .7
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Roof leg (2 1/2 inch
diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 1.7
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T N sub F8 (Table-31 sup
f).
Adjustable, pontoon area
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.41
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Adjustable, center area
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.41
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Adjustable, double-deck roofs
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0
m (dimensionless) 0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fixed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Fitting type and construction details Rim vent (6-inch
diameter)
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr)
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr)
m (dimensionless)
Typical number of fittings, N sub T sup g1.
Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.71
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 0.10
m (dimensionless) sup c1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
Loss factors sup b
K sub Fa (lb-mole/yr) 0.68
K sub Fb (lb-mole/ mi/hr sup m-yr) 1.8
m (dimensionless) 1.0
Typical number of fittings, N sub T
sup a The roof fitting loss factors, K sub Fa, K sub Fb, and m,
may only be used for wind speeds from 2 to 15 miles per hour.
sup b Unit abbreviations are as follows: lb pound; mi miles;
hr hour; yr year.
sup c If no specific information is available, this value can be
assumed to represent the most common or typical roof fittings
currently in use.
sup d A slotted guide-pole/sample well is an optional fitting and
is not typically used.
sup e Roof drains that drain excess rainwater into the product
are not used on pontoon floating roofs. They are, however, used
on double-deck floating roofs and are typically left open.
sup f The most common roof leg diameter is 3 inches. The loss
factors for 2 1/2 inch diameter roof legs are provided for use
if this smaller size roof is used on a particular floating roof.
sup g Rim vents are used only with mechanical-shoe primary seals.
Table 30.- Typical Number of Vacuum Breakers, N sub F6 and
Roof Drains, sup a N sub F7
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 50
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 1
Double-deck roof 1
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 1
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 100
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 1
Double-deck roof 1
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 1
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 150
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 2
Double-deck roof 2
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 2
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 200
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 3
Double-deck roof 2
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 3
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 250
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 4
Double-deck roof 3
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 5
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 300
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 5
Double-deck roof 3
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c 7
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 350
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 6
Double-deck roof 4
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c d
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 400
No. of vacuum breakers, N sub F6 7
Double-deck roof 4
No. of roof drains, N sub F7 (double-deck roof) sup c d
sup a This table should not supersede information based on
actual tank data.
sup b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed,
the closest diameter listed should be used. If the actual
diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger
diameter should be used.
sup c Roof drains that drain excess rainwater into the product
are not used on pontoon floating roofs. They are, however, used
on double-deck floating roofs, and are typically left open.
sup d For tanks more than 300 feet in diameter, actual tank data
or the manufacturer's recommendations may be needed for the
number of roof drains.
Table 31.- Typical Number of Roof Legs, sup a N sub F8
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 30
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 4
No. of center legs 2
No. of legs on double-deck roof 6
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 40
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 4
No. of center legs 4
No. of legs on double-deck roof 7
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 50
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 6
No. of center legs 6
No. of legs on double-deck roof 8
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 60
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 9
No. of center legs 7
No. of legs on double-deck roof 10
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 70
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 13
No. of center legs 9
No. of legs on double-deck roof 13
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 80
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 15
No. of center legs 10
No. of legs on double-deck roof 16
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 90
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 16
No. of center legs 12
No. of legs on double-deck roof 20
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 100
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 17
No. of center legs 16
No. of legs on double-deck roof 25
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 110
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 18
No. of center legs 20
No. of legs on double-deck roof 29
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 120
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 19
No. of center legs 24
No. of legs on double-deck roof 34
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 130
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 20
No. of center legs 28
No. of legs on double-deck roof 40
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 140
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 21
No. of center legs 33
No. of legs on double-deck roof 46
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 150
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 23
No. of center legs 38
No. of legs on double-deck roof 52
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 160
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 26
No. of center legs 42
No. of legs on double-deck roof 58
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 170
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 27
No. of center legs 49
No. of legs on double-deck roof 66
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 180
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 28
No. of center legs 56
No. of legs on double-deck roof 74
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 190
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 29
No. of center legs 62
No. of legs on double-deck roof 82
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 200
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 30
No. of center legs 69
No. of legs on double-deck roof 90
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 210
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 31
No. of center legs 77
No. of legs on double-deck roof 98
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 220
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 32
No. of center legs 83
No. of legs on double-deck roof 107
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 230
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 33
No. of center legs 92
No. of legs on double-deck roof 115
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 240
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 34
No. of center legs 101
No. of legs on double-deck roof 127
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 250
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 34
No. of center legs 109
No. of legs on double-deck roof 138
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 260
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 36
No. of center legs 118
No. of legs on double-deck roof 149
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 270
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 36
No. of center legs 128
No. of legs on double-deck roof 162
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 280
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 37
No. of center legs 138
No. of legs on double-deck roof 173
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 290
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 38
No. of center legs 148
No. of legs on double-deck roof 186
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 300
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 38
No. of center legs 156
No. of legs on double-deck roof 200
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 310
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 39
No. of center legs 168
No. of legs on double-deck roof 213
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 320
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 39
No. of center legs 179
No. of legs on double-deck roof 226
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 330
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 40
No. of center legs 190
No. of legs on double-deck roof 240
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 340
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 41
No. of center legs 202
No. of legs on double-deck roof 255
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 350
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 42
No. of center legs 213
No. of legs on double-deck roof 270
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 360
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 44
No. of center legs 226
No. of legs on double-deck roof 285
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 370
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 45
No. of center legs 238
No. of legs on double-deck roof 300
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 380
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 46
No. of center legs 252
No. of legs on double-deck roof 315
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 390
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 47
No. of center legs 266
No. of legs on double-deck roof 330
Tank diameter D (feet) sup b 400
Pontoon roof
No. of pontoon legs 48
No. of center legs 281
No. of legs on double-deck roof 345
sup a This table should not supersede information based on
actual tank data.
sup b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed,
the closest diameter listed should be used. If the actual
diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger
diameter should be used.
Table 32.- Saturation Factors
Cargo carrier Tank trucks and rail tank cars
Mode of operation Submerged loading of a clean cargo tank
S factor 0.50
Mode of operation Submerged loading: dedicated normal service
S factor 0.60
Mode of operation Submerged loading: dedicated vapor balance
service
S factor 1.00
Mode of operation Splash loading of a clean cargo tank
S factor 1.45
Mode of operation Splash loading: dedicated normal service
S factor 1.45
Mode of operation Splash loading: dedicated vapor balance
service
S factor 1.00
Table 33.-Fraction Removed (Fr) for HAP Compounds in
Wastewater Streams
Chemical name Acetaldehyde
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Acetonitrile
Fr 0.934
Chemical name Acetophenone
Fr 0.920
Chemical name Acrolein
Fr 0.957
Chemical name Acrylonitrile
Fr 0.960
Chemical name Allyl chloride
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Aniline
Fr 0.468
Chemical name Benzene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Benzyl chloride
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Biphenyl
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Bromoform
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 1,3-Butadiene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Carbon disulfide
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Carbon tetrachloride
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 2-Chloroacetophenone
Fr 0.939
Chemical name Chlorobenzene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Chloroform
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Chloroprene (2-Chloro-1,3-Butadiene)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name o-Cresol
Fr 0.448
Chemical name Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Dichloroethyl ether
Fr 0.935
Chemical name 1,3-Dichloropropene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name N,N-Dimethylaniline
Fr 0.927
Chemical name Diethyl sulfate
Fr 0.814
Chemical name 3,3 minutes -Dimethylbenzidine
Fr 0.635
Chemical name 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Fr 0.448
Chemical name Dimethyl sulfate
Fr 0.697
Chemical name 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Fr 0.908
Chemical name 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fr 0.626
Chemical name 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
Fr 0.787
Chemical name Epichlorohydrin(1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
Fr 0.890
Chemical name Ethyl acrylate
Fr 0.961
Chemical name Ethylbenzene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Ethylene dibromide
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Ethylene oxide
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
Fr 0.425
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
Fr 0.529
Chemical name Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether
Fr 0.943
Chemical name Diethylene glycol diethyl ether
Fr 0.523
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
Fr 0.927
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
Fr 0.470
Chemical name Hexachlorobenzene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Hexachlorobutadiene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Hexachloroethane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Hexane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Isophorone
Fr 0.945
Chemical name Methanol
Fr 0.829
Chemical name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methyl methacrylate
Fr 0.958
Chemical name Methyl tert-butyl ether
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Naphthalene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Nitrobenzene
Fr 0.936
Chemical name 2-Nitropropane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Phosgene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Propionaldehyde
Fr 0.952
Chemical name Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Propylene oxide
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Styrene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Toluene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name o-Toluidine
Fr 0.487
Chemical name 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Trichloroethylene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Fr 0.914
Chemical name Triethylamine
Fr 1.000
Chemical name 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Vinyl acetate
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Vinyl chloride
Fr 1.000
Chemical name Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
Fr 1.000
Chemical name m-Xylene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name o-Xylene
Fr 1.000
Chemical name p-Xylene
Fr 1.000
Sec. 63.151 Initial notification and implementation plan.
(a) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this Subpart shall submit the
reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section. Owners or
operators requesting an extension of compliance shall also submit the report listed
in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(1) An Initial Notification described in paragraph (b) of this section, and
(2) An Implementation Plan, unless an application for an operating permit has
been submitted prior to the date the Implementation Plan is due.
(i) The submittal date and contents of the Implementation Plan for emission
points to be included in an emissions average are specified in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section.
(ii) The submittal date and contents of the Implementation Plan for emission
points that will not be included in an emissions average are specified in
paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section.
(3) A Notification of Compliance Status described in Sec. 63.152 of this
Subpart,
(4) Periodic Reports described in Sec. 63.152 of this Subpart, and
(5) Other reports described in Sec. 63.152 of this Subpart.
(6) Pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act, an owner or operator may request an
extension allowing the source up to 1 additional year to comply with Section 112(d)
standards.
(i) For purposes of this subpart, a request for an extension shall be submitted
to the operating permit authority as part of the operating permit application. If
the State in which the source is located does not have an approved operating permit
program, a request for an extension shall be submitted to the Administrator as part
of the Initial Notification or as a separate submittal. Requests for extensions
shall be submitted no later than the date the Implementation Plan is required to be
submitted. The dates specified in Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A fn 17 for submittal of
requests for extensions shall not apply to sources subject to subpart G.
fn 17 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(ii) A request for an extension of compliance must include the data described
in Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i) through (i)(6)(iii) of subpart A. fn 18
fn 18 See Footnote 17.
(iii) The requirements in Sec. 63.6(i)(8) through (i)(14) of subpart A fn 19
will govern the review and approval of requests for extensions of compliance with
this Subpart.
fn 19 See Footnote 17.
(b) Each owner or operator of an existing or new source subject to subpart G
shall submit a written Initial Notification to the Administrator, containing the
information described in paragraph (b)(1), according to the schedule in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. The Initial Notification provisions in Sec. 63.9(b)(2),
(b)(3), and (b)(6) of subpart A fn 20 shall not apply to owners or operators of
sources subject to subpart G.
fn 20 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(1) The Initial Notification shall include the following information:
(i) The name and address of the owner or operator;
(ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
(iii) An identification of the provisions included in subpart G that are the
basis of the notification;
(iv) An identification of the chemical manufacturing processes subject to
subpart G;
(v) A statement of whether the source can achieve compliance by the relevant
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F; and
(vi) If the owner or operator requests to be exempt from the HON because the
source is an area source as defined by section 112(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990, an analysis demonstrating that the source is an area source.
(2) The Initial Notification shall be submitted according to the schedule in
paragraph (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), or (b)(2)(iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) For a source that has an initial startup prior to the date of promulgation
of this subpart, the Initial Notification shall be submitted within 120 days after
the date of promulgation.
(ii) For a source that commences construction or reconstruction after the date
of promulgation of this Subpart, the Initial Notification shall be submitted at
least 180 days before the construction or reconstruction is planned to commence
(but it need not be sooner than 45 days after the date of promulgation of this
subpart).
(iii) For a source that commences construction or reconstruction on or prior to
the date of promulgation of this Subpart but has an initial startup after the date
of promulgation, the Initial Notification shall be submitted within 45 days after
the date of promulgation of this Subpart.
(c) Each owner or operator of an existing or new source subject to this Subpart
who has not submitted an operating permit application must submit an Implementation
Plan to the Administrator by the dates specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2).
The Implementation Plan for emissions averaging is subject to Administrator
approval.
(1) For existing sources, an Implementation Plan shall be submitted as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii).
(i) Each owner or operator of an existing source subject to this Subpart who
elects to comply with Sec. 63.112 by using emissions averaging for any emission
points, and who has not submitted an operating permit application at least 18
months prior to the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F,
shall develop an Implementation Plan for emissions averaging. For existing sources,
the Implementation Plan for those emission points to be included in an emissions
average shall be submitted no later than 18 months prior to the compliance dates in
Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(ii) Each owner or operator of an existing source subject to this subpart who
elects to comply with Sec. 63.112 of this subpart by complying with the provisions
of Secs. 63.113 to 63.147 of this Subpart, rather than emissions averaging, for any
emission points, and who has not submitted an operating permit application at least
12 months prior to the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F,
shall develop an Implementation Plan. For an existing source, the Implementation
Plan for those emission points that are not to be included in an emissions average
shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 12 months prior to the
compliance dates in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(2) For new sources, an Implementation Plan shall be submitted as specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii).
(i) Each owner or operator of a new source who elects to comply with Sec.
63.112 of this Subpart by using emissions averaging for any emission points shall
submit an Implementation Plan for emissions averaging with the Initial Notification
by the date specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (b)(2)(iii) of this section, as
applicable, unless an operating permit application containing the information in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) of this section has been submitted by that date.
(ii) Each owner or operator of a new source who elects to comply with Sec.
63.112 of this subpart by complying with the provisions of Secs. 63.113 to 63.147
of this Subpart for any emission points shall submit an Implementation Plan with
the Initial Notification by the date specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, as applicable, unless an operating permit application
containing the information in {pg 62761} paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this
section has been submitted by that date.
(3) The Administrator shall determine within 120 days whether the
Implementation Plan submitted by sources using emissions averaging presents
sufficient information. The Administrator shall either approve the Implementation
Plan, request changes, or request that the owner or operator submit additional
information. Once the Administrator receives sufficient information, the
Administrator shall approve or request changes to the plan within 120 days.
(d) Each owner or operator required to submit an Implementation Plan for
emissions averaging shall include in the plan the information listed in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (d)(8) of this section for all emission points included in the
emissions average. All Group 1 and Group 2 emission points in an emissions average
shall perform monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, equivalent to that required
for Group 1 points under Secs. 63.113 through 63.147.
(1) The identification of all emission points in an emissions average and
notation of whether each point is a Group 1 or Group 2 emission point as defined in
Sec. 63.111 of this Subpart.
(2) The projected emission debits and credits for each point and the sum for
the points involved in the average calculated according to Sec. 63.150 of this
subpart. The projected credits must be greater than the projected debits, as
required under Sec. 63.150(e)(3) of this subpart.
(3) The specific control technology or pollution prevention measure that will
be used for each emission point included in the average and date of application or
expected date of application.
(4) To be considered a pollution prevention measure, the criteria in Sec.
63.150(i)(1) of this subpart must be met. If the same pollution prevention measure
reduces or eliminates emissions from multiple emission points in the average, the
owner or operator must identify each of these emission points.
(5) For each process vent included in the average, the owner or operator shall
document the following information:
(i) The estimated flow rate, organic HAP concentration, or TRE index value used
to determine whether the vent is Group 1 or Group 2. Where TRE index value is used
for group determination, the estimated or measured values of the parameters used in
the TRE equation in Sec. 63.115(d) of this Subpart (flow rate, organic HAP emission
rate, TOC emission rate, and net heating value) and the resulting TRE index value
shall be submitted.
(ii) The estimated values of all parameters needed for input to the emission
debit and credit calculations in Sec. 63.150 (f)(2) and (g)(2) of this Subpart.
(iii) The estimated percent reduction if a control technology achieving less
than or equal to 98 percent emission reduction or a pollution prevention measure is
or will be applied to the process vent.
(iv) The anticipated nominal efficiency if a control technology achieving
greater than 98 percent emission reduction is or will be applied to the process
vent. The procedures in Sec. 63.150(h) shall be followed to apply for a nominal
efficiency.
(v) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date,
records of all information required for calculation of emission debits and credits
will be kept.
(vi) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date, the
source will implement the following testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting procedures for each vent equipped with a flare, incinerator, boiler, or
process heater:
(A) Determine whether the vent is Group 1 or Group 2 according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.115.
(B) Conduct initial performance tests to determine percent reduction as
specified in Sec. 63.116 of this Subpart;
(C) Monitor the operating parameters, keep records, and submit reports
specified in Secs. 63.114(a) and (d), 63.117(a), and 63.118(a), (f), and (g) of
this Subpart, as appropriate for the specific control device.
(vii) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date,
the source will implement the following procedures for each vent equipped with a
carbon adsorber, absorber, or condenser but not equipped with a control device:
(A) Determine the flow rate, organic HAP concentration, and TRE index value
using the methods specified in Sec. 63.115 of this Subpart;
(B) Monitor the operating parameters, keep records, and submit reports
specified in Secs. 63.114(b), Sec. 63.117(a), and Sec. 63.118(b), (f), and (g) of
this Subpart, as appropriate for the specific recovery device.
(viii) For each process vent controlled by a pollution prevention measure, or
equipped with a device other than a flare, incinerator, boiler, process heater,
adsorber, condenser, or absorber, the information specified in Sec. 63.151(f) of
this Subpart shall be included in the Implementation Plan.
(6) For each storage vessel included in the average, the owner or operator
shall document the following information:
(i) The storage vessel capacity and the estimated vapor pressure of the liquid
stored used to determine whether the storage vessel is a Group 1 or Group 2 storage
vessel.
(ii) The estimated values of all parameters needed for input to the storage
emissions credit and debit calculations in Sec. 63.150(f)(3) and (g)(3) of this
Subpart.
(iii) The estimated percent reduction if a control technology achieving less
than or equal to 95 percent emission reduction or a pollution prevention measure is
or will be applied to the storage vessel.
(iv) The anticipated nominal efficiency if a control technology achieving
greater than 95 percent emission reduction is or will be applied to the storage
vessel. The procedures in Sec. 63.150(h) of this subpart shall be followed to apply
for a nominal efficiency.
(v) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date,
records of all information required for calculation of emission debits and credits
will be kept.
(vi) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date, for
each storage vessel controlled with an internal floating roof, external roof, or a
closed vent system with a control device, the source will implement the following
procedures, as appropriate to the control technique:
(A) Perform the monitoring or inspection procedures in Sec. 63.120 of this
subpart,
(B) Perform the reporting and recordkeeping procedures in Secs. 63.122 and
63.123 of this subpart, and
(C) For closed vent systems with control devices, conduct an initial design
evaluation and submit an operating plan as specified in Sec. 63.120(d) and Sec.
63.122(a)(2) and (b) of this Subpart.
(vii) For each storage vessel controlled by a pollution prevention measure or
control technique other than an internal or external floating roof or closed vent
system with a control device, the information specified in Sec. 63.151(f) of this
Subpart shall be included in the Implementation Plan.
(7) For each transfer rack included in the average, the owner or operator shall
document the following information:
(i) The estimated annual weighted average rack vapor pressure and projected
annual throughput of liquid containing organic HAP's used to determine whether the
transfer rack is a Group 1 or Group 2 transfer rack.{pg 62762}
(ii) The estimated values of all parameters needed for input to the transfer
emission credit and debit calculations in Sec. 63.150(f)(4) and (g)(4) of this
Subpart.
(iii) The estimated percent reduction if a control technology achieving less
than or equal to 98 percent emission reduction or a pollution prevention measure is
or will be applied to the transfer rack.
(iv) The anticipated nominal efficiency if a control technology achieving
greater than 98 percent emission reduction is or will be applied to the transfer
rack. The procedures in Sec. 63.150(h) of this Subpart shall be followed to apply
for a nominal efficiency.
(v) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date,
records of all information required for calculation of emission debits and credits
will be kept.
(vi) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date, for
each transfer rack controlled with a vapor balancing system, or a vapor collection
system and an incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater, adsorber, condenser, or
absorber, the source will implement the following procedures, as appropriate to the
control technique:
(A) The monitoring and inspection procedures in Secs. 63.126 and 63.127 of this
subpart,
(B) The testing and compliance procedures in Sec. 63.128 of this subpart, and
(C) The reporting and recordkeeping procedures in Secs. 63.129 and 63.130 of
this subpart.
(vii) For each transfer rack controlled by a pollution prevention measure or a
control device other than those listed in paragraph (d)(7)(vi) of this section, the
information specified in Sec. 63.151(f) of this subpart shall be included in the
Implementation Plan.
(8) For each process wastewater stream included in the average, the owner or
operator shall document the following information:
(i) The information specified in Table 14a for wastewater streams at new
sources and in Table 14b for wastewater streams at new and existing sources used to
determine whether the wastewater stream is a Group 1 or Group 2 wastewater stream.
(ii) The estimated values of all parameters needed for input to the wastewater
emission credit and debit calculations in Sec. 63.150(f)(5) and (g)(5) of this
Subpart.
(iii) The estimated percent reduction if:
(A) A control technology that achieves an emission reduction less than or equal
to the emission reduction achieved by the design steam stripper, as specified in
Sec. 63.138(f) of this subpart, is or will be applied to the wastewater stream, or
(B) A control technology achieving less than or equal to 95 percent emission
reduction is or will be applied to the vapor stream(s) vented and collected from
the treatment processes, or
(C) A pollution prevention measure is or will be applied.
(iv) The anticipated nominal efficiency if the owner or operator plans to apply
for a nominal efficiency under Sec. 63.150(h) of this subpart. A nominal efficiency
shall be applied for if:
(A) A control technology is or will be applied to the wastewater stream and
achieves an emission reduction greater than the emission reduction achieved by the
design steam stripper as specified in Sec. 63.138(f) of this subpart, or
(B) A control technology achieving greater than 95 percent emission reduction
is or will be applied to the vapor stream(s) vented and collected from the
treatment processes.
(v) A written statement certifying that, beginning on the compliance date,
records of all information required for calculation of emission debits and credits
will be kept.
(vi) A written statement that, beginning on the compliance date, the source
will implement the following procedures, as appropriate, to the control techniques:
(A) For wastewater tanks, surface impoundments, containers, individual drain
systems, oil-water separators and closed vent systems and control devices, conduct
tests as specified in Sec. 63.145(e) of this subpart.
(B) For wastewater treatment processes, conduct tests as specified in Secs.
63.138(h) and (i) of this subpart.
(C) Conduct inspections and monitoring as specified in Sec. 63.143 of this
subpart.
(D) A recordkeeping program as specified in Sec. 63.147 of this subpart.
(E) A reporting program as specified in Sec. 63.146 of this subpart.
(vii) For each pollution prevention measure, treatment process, or control
device used to reduce air emissions of organic HAP's from wastewater and for which
no monitoring parameters or inspection procedures are specified in Sec. 63.143 of
this subpart, the information specified in Sec. 63.151(f) of this subpart shall be
included in the Implementation Plan.
(e) An owner or operator required to submit an Implementation Plan shall
include in the Implementation Plan the information listed in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(5) of this section for emission points that are not included in an
emissions average.
(1) A list designating each emission point complying with Secs. 63.113 to
63.147 of this subpart.
(i) Whether each emission point is Group 1 or Group 2.
(ii) For process wastewater, the information specified in Table 14a for
wastewater streams at new sources and in Table 14b for wastewater streams at new
and existing sources.
(2) The control technology or method of compliance that will be applied to each
Group 1 emission point.
(3) A written statement certifying that the compliance demonstration,
monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions in Secs. 63.113
through 63.147 of this subpart that are applicable to each emission point will be
implemented beginning on the date of compliance.
(4) The operating plan required in Sec. 63.122(a)(2) and (b) of this subpart
for each storage vessel controlled with a closed vent system with a control device
other than a flare.
(5) The monitoring information in Sec. 63.151(f) of this subpart if, for any
emission point, the owner or operator of a source seeks to:
(i) Comply through use of a control device or method other than those for which
monitoring parameters are specified in Sec. 63.114 for process vents, Sec. 63.127
for transfer, and Sec. 63.143 for process wastewater, or
(ii) Monitor a parameter other than those specified in Secs. 63.114, 63.127, or
63.143 of this subpart.
(f) The owner or operator who has been directed by any other section of this
Subpart to set unique monitoring parameters or who requests approval to monitor a
different parameter than those listed in Sec. 63.114 for process vents, Sec. 63.127
for transfer, or Sec. 63.143 for process wastewater shall submit the following
information with the Implementation Plan required in Sec. 63.151(c), (d), and (e)
of this subpart:
(1) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the control
technology is operated in conformance with its design and achieves the specified
emission limit, percent reduction, or nominal efficiency, and an explanation of the
criteria used to select the parameter(s).
(2) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used to
demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the control device,
and the schedule for this demonstration. The owner or operator must certify that
they will establish a range for the monitored parameter as part of the Notification
of Compliance {pg 62763} Status report required in Sec. 63.152(b) of this subpart,
or the operating permit application, whichever occurs first.
(3) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and reporting if
monitoring and recording is not continuous, or if reports of 3-hour periods when
the monitored parameter value is outside the range established in the operating
permit or Notification of Compliance Status will not be included in Periodic
Reports required under Sec. 63.152(c) of this subpart. The rationale for the
proposed monitoring, recording, and reporting system shall be included.
(g) The owner or operator required to prepare an Implementation Plan under
paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section shall also prepare a supplement to the
Implementation Plan for any alternative controls or operating scenarios that may be
used to achieve compliance.
(h) The owner or operator of a source required to submit an Implementation Plan
under paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section shall also submit written updates
of the Implementation Plan to the Administrator under the circumstances described
in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this section unless the
relevant information has been included and submitted in an operating permit
application. The written updates to the Implementation Plan shall be submitted
within 90 days of the process change or the change in the planned method of
achieving compliance.
(1) Whenever a process change is made such that the group status of any
emission point changes.
(2) Whenever a value of a parameter in the emission credit or debit equations
in Sec. 63.150(f) or (g) changes such that it is outside the range specified in the
Implementation Plan and causes a decrease in the projected credits or an increase
in the projected debits.
(3) Whenever an owner or operator elects to achieve compliance with this
subpart by using a control technique other than that specified in the
Implementation Plan or plans to monitor a different parameter or operate a control
device in a manner other than that specified in the Implementation Plan.
(4) Whenever a new emission point is added to a source, a written addendum to
the implementation program containing information on the new emission point shall
be submitted.
(i) If the new emission point will be included in an emissions average, the
information in paragraph (d) of this section shall be included.
(ii) If the new emission point will not be included in an emissions average,
the information in paragraph (e) of this section shall be included.
Sec. 63.152 General reporting.
(a) The owner or operator of a source subject to this Subpart shall submit the
reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section. Owners or
operators requesting an extension of compliance shall also submit the report
described in Sec. 63.151(a)(6) of this subpart.
(1) An Initial Notification described in Sec. 63.151(b) of this Subpart.
(2) An Implementation Plan described in Sec. 63.151(c), (d), and (e) of this
subpart, unless an application for an operating permit has been submitted prior to
the date the Implementation Plan is due.
(3) A Notification of Compliance Status described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(4) Periodic Reports described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(5) Other reports described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall submit a
Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days of the compliance dates specified
in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(1) The notification shall include the results of any emission point group
determinations, performance tests, inspections, continuous monitoring system
performance evaluations, values of monitored parameters established during
performance tests, and any other information used to demonstrate compliance or
required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under Sec. 63.117
for process vents, Sec. 63.122 for storage vessels, Sec. 63.129 for transfer
operations, Sec. 63.146 for process wastewater, and Sec. 63.150 for emission points
included in an emissions average.
(i) For performance tests and group determinations that are based on
measurements, the Notification of Compliance Status shall include one complete test
report for each test method used for a particular kind of emission point. For
additional tests performed for the same kind of emission point using the same
method, the results and any other information required in Sec. 63.117 for process
vents, Sec. 63.129 for transfer, and Sec. 63.146 for process wastewater shall be
submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(ii) A complete test report shall include a brief process description, sampling
site description, description of sampling and analysis procedures and any
modifications to standard procedures, quality assurance procedures, record of
operating conditions during the test, record of preparation of standards, record of
calibrations, raw data sheets for field sampling, raw data sheets for field and
laboratory analyses, documentation of calculations, and any other information
required by the test method.
(2) For each monitored parameter for which a range is required to be
established under Sec. 63.114 for process vents, Sec. 63.120(d) for storage, Sec.
63.127 for transfer, Sec. 63.143(f) for process wastewater, Sec. 63.151 (c), (d),
(e), or (f), or Sec. 63.152(e) of this Subpart, the Notification of Compliance
Status shall include the information in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and
(a)(2)(iii) of this section, unless the range has been established in the operating
permit.
(i) The specific range of the monitored parameter(s) for each emission point;
(ii) The rationale for the specific range for each parameter and emission
point, including any data and calculations used to develop the range and a
description of why the range indicates proper operation of the control device.
(iii) A definition of the source's operating day for purposes of determining
daily average values of monitored parameters. The definition shall specify the
times at which an operating day begins and ends.
(3) For emission points included in an emissions average, the Notification of
Compliance Status shall include the values of all parameters needed for input to
the emission credit and debit equations in Sec. 63.150 (f) and (g), calculated or
measured according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150 (f) and (g), and the resulting
calculation of credits and debits for the first quarter of the year. The first
quarter begins on the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(c) The owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall submit
Periodic Reports.
(1) Except as specified under paragraph (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section, a
report containing the information in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section
shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 6-month
period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 8 months after the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(2) For an owner or operator of a source complying with the provisions of Secs.
63.113 through 63.147 of this subpart for any emission points, Periodic Reports
shall include all information specified in Secs. 63.117 and 63.118 for process
vents, Sec. 63.122 for storage vessels, Secs. 63.129 and 63.130 for transfer
operations, and {pg 62764} Sec. 63.146 for process wastewater, including reports of
periods when monitored parameters are outside their established ranges.
(i) For each parameter or parameters required to be monitored for a control
device, the owner or operator shall establish a range of parameter values to ensure
that the device is being applied, operated and maintained properly. As specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, these parameter values and the definition of an
operating day shall be approved as part of and incorporated into the source's
Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit, as appropriate.
(ii) The parameter monitoring data for Group 1 emission points and emission
points included in emissions averages shall be used to determine compliance with
the required operating conditions for the control device. Except for excusable
periods during the operation of the control device, if daily average values for a
monitored parameter are outside the permitted range, the owner or operator shall be
deemed to have failed to have applied the control in a manner that achieves the
required operating conditions.
(A) For each emission point, the first (3 to 6) days during each semiannual
reporting period on which the daily average values of one or more monitored
parameters are outside the established ranges shall be excusable periods. (A range
of 3 to 6 days is proposed; a single number will be selected at promulgation.)
(B) If a monitored parameter is outside its established range during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, and the source is operated during such periods in
accordance with the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as required by
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A, fn 21 then the monitoring parameter excursion does
not count toward the excusable periods for determining compliance and is not a
violation.
fn 21 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(C) Nothing in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section shall be construed to allow
or excuse a monitoring parameter excursion caused by any activity that violates
other provisions of subparts A, F, or G of this part.
(iii) Periodic Reports shall include both excusable and unexcused periods when
monitored parameters are outside their established ranges.
(3) If any performance tests are reported in a Periodic Report, the following
information shall be included:
(i) One complete test report shall be submitted for each test method used for a
particular kind of emission point tested. A complete test report shall contain the
information specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) For additional tests performed for the same kind of emission point using
the same method, results and any other information required in Sec. 63.117 for
process vents, Sec. 63.129 for transfer, and Sec. 63.146 for process wastewater
shall be submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(4) The owner or operator of a source shall submit quarterly reports for all
emission points included in an emissions average.
(i) The quarterly reports shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the
end of each quarter. The first report shall be submitted no later than 5 months
after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100(f) of subpart F.
(ii) The quarterly reports shall include the information specified in this
paragraph for all emission points included in an emissions average.
(A) The credits and debits calculated each month during the quarter;
(B) A demonstration that debits calculated for the quarter are not more than
1.25 times the credits calculated for the quarter, as required under Sec.
63.150(e)(4).
(C) The values of any inputs to the credit and debit equations in Sec. 63.150
(f) and (g) of this Subpart that change from month to month during the quarter or
that have changed since the previous quarter;
(D) Results of any performance tests conducted during the reporting period
including one complete report for each test method used for a particular kind of
emission point as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
(E) Reports of periods when values of the monitoring parameters specified in
the operating permit or the Implementation Plan required under Sec. 63.151 (c) and
(d) of this Subpart are outside the range established in the operating permit or
the Notification of Compliance Status; and
(F) Any other information the source is required to report under the operating
permit or Implementation Plan for the source.
(iii) Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section shall govern the
use of monitoring data to determine compliance for Group 1 and Group 2 points
included in emissions averages, except that paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) shall not
apply. For each emission point included in an emissions average, the first (1 to 3)
days during each quarterly reporting period on which the daily average values of
one or more monitored parameters are outside the ranges established in the
operating permit or Notification of Compliance Status shall be excusable periods.
(A range of 1 to 3 days is proposed; a single number will be selected at
promulgation.)
(iv) Every fourth quarterly report shall include the following:
(A) A demonstration that annual credits are greater than or equal to annual
debits as required by Sec. 63.150(e)(3) of this Subpart;
(B) If bankable credits have been generating during the annual reporting
period, data used to calculate that bankable credits were generated, and a
certification of the accuracy of the data, as required by Sec. 63.150(e)(3)(i) of
this Subpart; and
(C) A certification of compliance with all the emissions averaging provisions
in Sec. 63.150 of this Subpart.
(5) The owner or operator of a source shall submit reports quarterly for
particular emission points not included in an emissions average under the
circumstances described in this paragraph.
(i) The owner or operator of a source subject to this Subpart shall submit
quarterly reports for a period of one year for an emission point that is not
included in an emissions average if:
(A) The total duration of periods when monitored parameter values for the
emission point are outside the range established in the operating permit or
Notification of Compliance Status is greater than 1 percent of the operating time
for a semiannual reporting period or the continuous monitoring system downtime is
greater than 5 percent of the total operating time for the reporting period, and
(B) The Administrator requests the owner or operator to submit quarterly
reports for the emission point.
(ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information in paragraphs (c)(2)
and (3) of this section applicable to the emission point(s) for which quarterly
reporting is required under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section. Information
applicable to other emission points within the source shall be submitted in the
semiannual reports required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(iii) Quarterly reports shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the end
of each quarter.
(iv) After quarterly reports have been submitted for an emission point for one
year, the owner or operator may return to semiannual reporting for the emission
point unless the Administrator requests the owner or operator to continue to submit
quarterly reports.
(v) Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section shall govern the
use of monitoring data to determine compliance for Group 1 emission {pg 62765}
points, except that paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) shall not apply. For each emission
point subject to quarterly reporting, the first (1 to 3) days during each quarterly
reporting period on which the daily average values of one or more monitored
parameters are outside the ranges established in the operating permit or
Notification of Compliance Status shall be excusable periods. (A range of 1 to 3
days is proposed; a single number will be selected at promulgation.)
(d) Other reports shall be submitted as specified in subpart A of this part or
in Secs. 63.113 through 63.151 of this subpart. These reports are:
(1) Reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)
of subpart A; fn 22
fn 22 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
(2) For process vents, reports of process changes required under Sec.
63.118(g), (h), (i), and (j) of this Subpart;
(3) For storage vessels, requests for extensions of repair as specified in Sec.
63.120(a)(4), (b)(7)(ii), and (b)(8) of this Subpart, and the notifications of
inspections required under Sec. 63.120(a)(5), (a)(6), (b)(9), and (b)(10) of this
Subpart;
(4) For process wastewater, requests for extensions for emptying a wastewater
tank as specified in Sec. 63.133(e)(2).
(5) For owners or operators of sources required to request approval for a
nominal control efficiency for use in calculating credits for an emissions average,
the information specified in Sec. 63.150(h) of this Subpart.
(e) An owner or operator who submits an operating permit application instead of
an Implementation Plan shall submit the following information with the operating
permit application:
(1) The information specified in Sec. 63.151(f) for any emission points for
which the owner or operator requests approval to monitor a unique parameter, and
(2) The information specified in Sec. 63.151(d) for points included in an
emissions average.
SUBPART H-National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Equipment Leaks
Sec. 63.160 Applicability and designation of sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to pumps, compressors, agitators,
pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, product accumulator vessels, instrumentation systems, and
control devices or systems required by this subpart that are intended to operate in
volatile hazardous air pollutant service 300 hours or more during the calendar year
within a process unit listed in:
(1) Paragraph (b) of this section that uses as a reactant or makes as an
intermediate or final product any of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183, or
(2) Paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)(1) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following process
units as listed in Sec. 63.184 on and after the designated dates:
(i) Group I: ( 1/2 year after promulgation).
(ii) Group II: ( 3/4 year after promulgation).
(iii) Group III: (1 year after promulgation).
(iv) Group IV: (1 1/4 years after promulgation).
(v) Group V: (1 1/2 years after promulgation).
(2) The owner or operator of an affected process unit in a later group may
elect to apply the applicability date of an earlier group.
(3) Any process unit listed in Sec. 63.184 that does not use as a reactant or
make as an intermediate or final product any of the chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183
is exempt from the provisions in Secs. 63.162 through 63.174. The owner or operator
shall maintain records as required in Sec. 63.181(k).
(c) The provisions of this subpart apply (1/2 year after promulgation) to the
following process units, and designated volatile hazardous air pollutants only, as
defined in Sec. 63.161:
(1) Styrene- butadiene rubber production (butadiene, styrene).
(2) Polybutadiene production (butadiene).
(3) Chlorine production (carbon tetrachloride).
(4) Pesticide production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, ethylene
dichloride).
(5) Chlorinated hydrocarbon use (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, chloroform, and ethylene dichloride).
(6) Pharmaceutical production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride).
(7) Miscellaneous butadiene use (butadiene).
(d) While the provisions of this subpart are effective, equipment to which this
subpart applies that are also subject to the provisions of:
(1) 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter, will be required to comply only with the
provisions of this subpart, except for each pump and compressor equipped with a
dual mechanical seal system that is in volatile organic compound service, or
(2) 40 CFR part 61 of this chapter, will be required to comply only with the
provisions of this subpart.
(e) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to any petroleum process unit
regardless of whether the unit supplies feedstocks, that include chemicals listed
in Sec. 63.183, to chemical processes that are subject to the provisions of this
subpart.
Sec. 63.161 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given them in the Act, in
subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, fn 1 and in this section as follows:
fn 1 The EPA will propose subpart A in the future.
Batch process means a process in which the equipment is fed intermittently or
discontinuously. Processing then occurs in this equipment after which the equipment
is generally emptied. Examples of industries that use batch processes include
pharmaceutical production and pesticide production.
Batch product-process equipment train means the collection of equipment (e.g.,
connectors, reactors, valves, pumps, etc.) configured to produce a specific product
or intermediate by a batch process.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon use means a process that produces one or more of the
following products using chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dichloride,
methylene chloride, or tetrachloroethylene: Chlorinated paraffins, Hypalon sup ,
oxybisphenoxarsine/1,3-diisocyanate (OBPA sup ), polycarbonate, polysulfide rubber,
and symmetrical tetrachloropyridiene.
Chlorine production means a process that uses carbon tetrachloride as a diluent
for nitrogen trichloride or as a scrubbing liquid to recover chlorine from the
liquefaction of tail gas.
Closed-loop system means an enclosed system that returns process fluid to the
process and is not vented to the atmosphere except through a closed-vent system.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and that
is composed of piping, connections and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from a piece or pieces of equipment to a control device or
back into the process.
Connector means flanged, screwed, or other joined fittings used to connect two
pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. A common connector is a {pg
62766} flange. Joined fittings welded completely around the circumference of the
interface are not considered connectors for the purpose of this regulation. For the
purpose of reporting and recordkeeping, connector means joined fittings that are
not inaccessible, glass, or glass-lined as described in Sec. 63.174(h).
Control device means an enclosed combustion device, vapor recovery system
(including devices used for temporary recovery and ultimate disposal, such as
carbon adsorption), or flare.
Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in series with a
bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the two block valves.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device,
sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, product
accumulator vessel, and instrumentation system in volatile hazardous air pollutant
service; and any control devices or systems required by this Subpart.
First attempt at repair means to take action for the purpose of stopping or
reducing leakage of organic material to the atmosphere.
In food/medical service means that a piece of equipment in volatile hazardous
air pollutant service contacts a process stream used to manufacture a Food and Drug
Administration regulated product where leakage of a barrier fluid into the process
stream would cause any of the following:
(1) A dilution of product quality so that the product would not meet written
specifications,
(2) An exothermic reaction which is a safety hazard,
(3) The intended reaction to be slowed down or stopped, or
(4) An undesired side reaction to occur.
In gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in volatile hazardous air
pollutant service contains a gas or vapor at operating conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in volatile hazardous
air pollutant service is not in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.
In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in volatile hazardous
air pollutant service contains a liquid that meets the following conditions:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the volatile hazardous air pollutants
is greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees C,
(2) The total concentration of the pure volatile hazardous air pollutant
constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees C
is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total process stream, and
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.
Note: Vapor pressures may be determined by the methods described in 40 CFR
60.485(e)(1) of this chapter.
In liquid service means that a piece of equipment in volatile hazardous air
pollutant service is not in gas/vapor service.
Instrumentation system means a group of equipment components used to condition
and convey a sample of the process fluid to analyzers and instruments for the
purpose of determining process operating conditions (e.g., composition, pressure,
flow, etc.). Valves and connectors are the predominant type of equipment used in
instrumentation systems; however, other types of equipment may also be included in
these systems. Only valves nominally 0.5 inches and smaller, and connectors
nominally 0.75 inches and smaller in diameter are considered instrumentation
systems for the purposes of this subpart. Valves greater than nominally 0.5 inches
and connectors greater than nominally 0.75 inches associated with instrumentation
systems are not considered part of instrumentation systems and must be monitored
individually.
In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at an internal pressure
which is at least 5 kilopascals below ambient pressure.
In volatile hazardous air pollutant or (VHAP) service means that a piece of
equipment either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5
percent by weight of a VHAP as determined according to the provisions of Sec.
63.180(d). The provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a
piece of equipment is not in VHAP service.
In volatile organic compound or (VOC) service means, for the purposes of this
subpart, that:
(1) The piece of equipment contains or contacts a process fluid that is at
least 10 percent VOC by weight (see 40 CFR 60.2 of this chapter for the definition
of VOC, and 40 CFR 60.485(d) of this chapter to determine whether a piece of
equipment is not in VOC service); and
(2) The piece of equipment is not in heavy liquid service as defined in 40 CFR
60.481 of this chapter.
In-situ sampling systems means nonextractive samplers or in-line samplers.
Liquids dripping means any visible leakage from the seal including dripping,
spraying, misting, clouding, and ice formation. Indications of liquid dripping
include puddling or new stains that are indicative of an existing evaporated drip.
Miscellaneous butadiene use means a process that produces one or more of the
following butadiene products: tetrahydrophtalic anhydride (THPA),
methylmethacrylatebutadiene styrene (MBS) resins, Captan sup , Captafol sup , 1,4-
hexadiene, adiponitrile, dodecanedionic acid, butadienefurfural cotrimer,
methylmethacrylate acrylonitrilebutadiene styrene (MABS) resins, and ethylidene
norbornene.
Nonrepairable means that it is technically infeasible to repair a piece of
equipment from which a leak has been detected without a process unit shutdown.
Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except pressure relief valves, having
one side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid and one side open to
atmosphere, either directly or through open piping.
Pesticide production means a process that uses one or more of the following
chemicals as a reactant or a processing aid in the synthesis of a pesticide
intermediate or product: Carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dichloride, and methylene
chloride.
Petroleum means the crude oil or natural gas liquids removed from the earth and
oils derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
Petroleum refining process unit means a process unit that for the purpose of
producing transportation fuels (such as gasoline and diesel fuels), heating oils
(such as distillate and residual fuel oils), or lubricants; separates petroleum; or
separates, cracks, or reforms unfinished petroleum derivatives. Examples of such
units include, but are not limited to, alkylation units, catalytic hydrotreating,
catalytic hydrorefining, catalytic hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, catalytic
cracking, crude distillation, and thermal processes.
Pharmaceutical production means a process that synthesizes pharmaceutical
intermediate or final products using carbon tetrachloride or methylene chloride as
a reactant or process solvent.
Plant site means a contiguous or adjoining area under the control of a single
owner or operator that contains one or more process units to which these standards
apply. Plant site does not include those units to which these standards do not
apply.
Polybutadiene production means a process that produces polybutadiene through
the polymerization of 1,3- butadiene.
Polymerizing monomer means a molecule or compound usually {pg 62767} containing
carbon and of relatively low molecular weight and simple structure (e.g., hydrogen
cyanide, acrylonitrile, styrene), which is capable of conversion to polymers,
synthetic resins, or elastomers by combination with itself due to heat generation
caused by a pump mechanical seal surface, contamination by a seal fluid (e.g.,
organic peroxides or chemicals that will form organic peroxides), or a combination
of both with the resultant polymer buildup causing rapid mechanical seal failure.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the system
pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure relief device.
Process unit means equipment that uses or produces a VHAP or its derivatives as
intermediates or final products, and is listed in Sec. 63.160 (b) and (c). For the
purpose of this regulation, process unit includes all equipment associated with the
unit process operation (e.g., reactors, distillation, etc.), storage and transfer
of feed material to the unit process operation and final or intermediate product
from the unit process operation, and operations treating wastewater from the unit
process operation.
Process unit shutdown means a work practice or operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of a process unit during which it is
technically feasible to clear process material from a process unit or part of a
process unit consistent with safety constraints and during which repairs can be
effected. An unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. An unscheduled work practice or operational procedure
that would stop production from a process unit or part of a process unit for a
shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process unit or part of
the process unit of materials and start up the unit, and would result in greater
emissions than delay of repair of leaking components until the next scheduled
process unit shutdown, is not a process unit shutdown. The use of spare equipment
and technically feasible bypassing of equipment without stopping production are not
process unit shutdowns.
Product accumulator vessel means any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver,
surge control vessel, or product separator in VHAP service that is vented to the
atmosphere either directly without first going through a pressure relief device or
through a vacuum producing system. A product accumulator vessel is in VHAP service
if the liquid or the vapor in the vessel is at least 5 percent by weight VHAP.
Repaired means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to eliminate a
leak as defined in the applicable sections of this Subpart.
Screwed connector means a threaded pipe fitting where the threads are cut on
the pipe wall and the fitting requires only two pieces to make the connection
(i.e., the pipe and the fitting).
Semiannual means a 6-month period; the first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last month during the 180 calendar days following initial startup
for new sources; and the first semiannual period concludes on the last day of the
last month during the 180 calendar days after the effective date of a specific
subpart that references this Subpart for existing sources unless an earlier month
is designated by the owner or operator.
Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the change in a
physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.
Set pressure means the pressure at which a properly operating pressure relief
device begins to open to relieve atypical process system operating pressure.
Startup means the setting in operation of a process unit or control device.
Styrene-butadiene rubber production means a process that produces styrene-
butadiene copolymers, whether in solid (elastomer) or emulsion (latex) form.
Volatile hazardous air pollutant or VHAP means a substance listed in Sec.
63.183.
Sec. 63.162 Standards: General.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Secs. 63.162 through 63.174 for
each new and existing source as required in 40 CFR 61.05 of this chapter, except as
provided in Secs. 63.175 through 63.179.
(b) Compliance with this subpart will be determined by review of records,
review of performance test results, and inspection using the methods and procedures
specified in Sec. 63.180.
(c)(1) An owner or operator may request a determination of alternative means of
emission limitation to the requirements of Secs. 63.163 and 63.164, Secs. 63.166
through 63.170, and Secs. 63.172 through 63.174 as provided in Sec. 63.177.
(2) If the Administrator makes a determination that a means of emission
limitation is a permissible alternative to the requirements of Secs. 63.163 and
63.164, Secs. 63.166 through 63.170, and Secs. 63.172, 63.173, or 63.174, the owner
or operator shall comply with the alternative.
(d) Each piece of equipment in a process unit to which this subpart applies
shall be identified such that it can be distinguished readily from equipment that
is not subject to this subpart. Identification of the equipment does not require
physical tagging of the equipment. For example, the equipment may be identified on
a plant site plan, in log entries, or by designation of process unit boundaries by
some form of weatherproof identification.
(e) Equipment that is in vacuum service is excluded from the requirements of
Secs. 63.163 through 63.174 if it is identified as required in Sec. 63.181(b)(5).
(f) Equipment that is in VHAP service less than 300 hours per calendar year is
excluded from the requirements of Secs. 63.163 through 63.174 and Sec. 63.178 if it
is identified as required in Sec. 63.181(b)(7).
(g) The provisions for existing process units apply to process units that
commenced construction or reconstruction before December 31, 1992. The provisions
for new process units apply to units the construction or reconstruction of which
commences on or after December 31, 1992.
Sec. 63.163 Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to each pump that is in light liquid
service.
(1) The provisions are implemented on the specified applicability dates
designated in Sec. 63.160(b) for existing and new process units in the phases
specified below:
(i) For each group of existing process units, the phases of the standard are:
(A) Phase I, beginning on the applicability date;
(B) Phase II, beginning 1 year after the applicability date; and
(C) Phase III, beginning 2 1/2 years after the applicability date.
(ii) For new process units, the applicable phases of the standard are:
(A) After initial startup, comply with the Phase II requirements; and
(B) Beginning 1 year after startup, comply with the Phase III requirements.
(2) The owner or operator of an affected process unit may elect to meet the
requirements of a later phase during the time period specified for an earlier
phase.
(b)(1) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor each
pump monthly to detect leaks by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b) and shall
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this {pg 62768}
section, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c) and paragraphs (e) through (h) of
this section.
(2) The instrument reading, as determined by the method as specified in Sec.
63.180(b), that defines a leak in each phase of the standard is:
(i) For Phase I, an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per million or greater.
(ii) For Phase II, an instrument reading of 5,000 parts per million or greater.
(iii) For Phase III, an instrument reading of:
(A) 5,000 parts per million or greater for pumps handling polymerizing
monomers;
(B) 2,000 parts per million or greater for pumps in food/medical service; and
(C) 1,000 parts per million or greater for all other pumps.
(3) Each pump shall be checked by visual inspection each calendar week for
indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal. If there are indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal, a leak is detected.
(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section or Sec. 63.171.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected. First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the
following practices where practicable:
(i) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(ii) Ensuring that the seal flush is operating at design pressure and
temperature.
(3) For pumps in Phase III to which a 1,000 parts per million leak definition
applies, repair is not required unless an instrument reading of 2,000 parts per
million or greater is detected.
(d)(1) The owner or operator shall decide no later than the first monitoring
period whether to calculate percent leaking pumps on a process unit basis or on a
plant site basis. Once the owner or operator has decided, all subsequent percent
calculations shall be made on the same basis.
(2) If, in Phase III, calculated on a 6-month rolling average, the greater of
either 10 percent of the pumps in a process unit (or plant site) or three pumps in
a process unit (or plant site) leak, the owner or operator shall implement a
quality improvement program for pumps that complies with the requirements of Sec.
63.176.
(3) The number of pumps at a process unit (or plant site) shall be the sum of
all the pumps in VHAP service, except that pumps found leaking in a continuous
process unit within 1 month after startup shall not count in the percent leaking
pumps calculation for that one monitoring period only.
(4) Percent leaking pumps shall be determined by the following equation:
%P sub L ((P sub L-P sub S)/(P sub T-P sub S))X 100
where:
%P sub L Percent leaking pumps
P sub L Number of pumps found leaking as determined through monthly monitoring
as required in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
P sub T Total pumps in VHAP service, including those meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
P sub S Number of pumps leaking within 1 month of startup during the current
monitoring period.
(e) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section, provided the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times greater
than the pump stuffing box pressure; or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is connected by a
closed-vent system to a control device that complies with the requirements of Sec.
63.172; or
(iii) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the barrier fluid into a
process stream.
(2) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid VHAP service.
(3) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(4) Each pump is checked by visual inspection each calendar week for
indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal.
(i) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal at the time
of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in Sec.
63.180(b) to determine the presence of VHAP in the barrier fluid.
(ii) If an instrument reading of 1,000 parts per million or greater is
measured, a leak is detected.
(5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section is observed
daily or is equipped with an alarm unless the pump is located within the boundary
of an unmanned plant site.
(6)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations and
operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of drips
and to the sensor that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid
system, or both.
(ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed the criteria
established in paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section, or if, based on the criteria
established in paragraph (e) not in old draft (6)(i) of this section, the sensor
indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is
detected.
(iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in Sec.
63.171.
(iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days
after each leak is detected.
(f) Any pump that is designed with no externally actuated shaft penetrating the
pump housing is exempt from paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section.
(g) Any pump equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and
transporting any leakage from the seal or seals to a control device that complies
with the requirements of Sec. 63.172 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs
(b) through (e).
(h) Any pump that is located within the boundary of an unmanned plant site is
exempt from the weekly visual inspection requirement of paragraphs (b)(3) and
(e)(4) of this section, and the daily requirements of paragraph (e)(5) of this
section, provided that each pump is visually inspected as often as practicable and
at least monthly.
Sec. 63.164 Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of process fluid to atmosphere,
except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c) and paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as required in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pressure; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid system that is connected by a closed-vent
system to a control device that complies with the requirements of Sec. 63.172; or
(3) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the barrier fluid directly
into a process stream.
(c) The barrier fluid shall not be in light liquid service.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section shall be equipped with a sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.{pg 62769}
(e)(1) Each sensor as required in paragraph (d) of this section shall be
observed daily or shall be equipped with an alarm unless the compressor is located
within the boundary of an unmanned plant site.
(2) The owner or operator shall determine, based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid
system, or both based on the criterion determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, a leak is detected.
(g)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in
Sec. 63.171.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section if it is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and
transporting any leakage from the seal to a control device that complies with the
requirements of Sec. 63.172, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) Any compressor that is designated, as described in Sec. 63.181(b)(2), to
operate as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million
above background, is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (h) of
this section if the compressor:
(1) Is demonstrated to be operating with an instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million above background, as measured by the method specified in Sec.
63.180(c); and
(2) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other times requested by the Administrator.
Sec. 63.165 Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.
(a) Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per
million above background except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, as
measured by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(c).
(b)(1) After each pressure release, the pressure relief device shall be
returned to a condition indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts
per million above background, as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar
days after each pressure release, except as provided in Sec. 63.171.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release, the pressure
relief device shall be monitored to confirm the condition indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million above background, as measured
by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to a
control device as described in Sec. 63.172 is exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Sec. 63.166 Standards: Sampling connection systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a closed-purge,
closed-loop, or closed-vent system, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c).
(b) Each closed- purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) of this section shall:
(1) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line; or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid; or
(3) Be designed and operated to capture and transport all the purged process
fluid to a control device that complies with the requirements of Sec. 63.172.
(c) In-situ sampling systems are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
Sec. 63.167 Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.
(a)(1) Each open-ended valve or line shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c).
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall seal the open end at all
times except during operations requiring process fluid flow through the open-ended
valve or line, or during maintenance or repair.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the valve on the process fluid end is closed before
the second valve is closed.
(c) When a double block and bleed system is being used, the bleed valve or line
may remain open during operations that require venting the line between the block
valves but shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section at all other times.
Sec. 63.168 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to valves that are either in gas
service or in light liquid service.
(1) The provisions are implemented on the specified applicability dates set
forth in Sec. 63.160(b) for existing and new process units in the phases specified
below:
(i) For each group of existing process units, the phases of the standard are:
(A) Phase I, beginning on the applicability date;
(B) Phase II, beginning 1 year after the applicability date; and
(C) Phase III, beginning 2 1/2 years after the applicability date.
(ii) For new process units, the applicable phases of the standard are:
(A) After initial startup, comply with the Phase II requirements; and
(B) Beginning 1 year after startup, comply with the Phase III requirements.
(2) The owner or operator of an affected process unit may elect to meet the
requirements of a later phase during the time period specified for an earlier
phase.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor all valves,
except as provided in Sec. 63.162 (c), (h), and (i) of this section, at the
intervals specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and shall comply with
all other provisions of this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.171, Sec.
63.177, Sec. 63.178, and Sec. 63.179.
(1) The valves shall be monitored to detect leaks by the method specified in
Sec. 63.180(b).
(2) The instrument reading that defines a leak in each phase of the standard
is:
(i) For Phase I, an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per million or greater.
(ii) For Phase II, an instrument reading of 500 parts per million or greater.
(iii) For Phase III, an instrument reading of 500 parts per million or greater.
(c) In Phases I and II, each valve shall be monitored quarterly.
(d) In Phase III, the owner or operator shall monitor valves for leaks at the
intervals specified below:
(1) At process units with 2 percent or greater leaking valves, calculated as a
rolling average of 2 consecutive periods, the owner or operator shall either:
(i) Monitor each valve once per month; or
(ii) Within the first year after the onset of Phase III, implement a quality
improvement program for valves that complies with the requirements of Sec. 63.175
and monitor quarterly.
(2) At process units with less than 2 percent leaking valves, the owner or
operator shall monitor each valve once each quarter, except as provided in the
following paragraphs (d) (3) and (4) of this section.
(3) At process units with less than 1 percent leaking valves, the owner or {pg
62770} operator may elect to monitor each valve once every 2 quarters.
(4) At process units with less than 0.5 percent leaking valves, the owner or
operator may elect to monitor each valve once every 4 quarters.
(e)(1) Percent leaking valves at a process unit shall be determined by the
following equation:
%V sub L ((V sub L/(V sub T + V sub C)) X 100
where:
%V sub L Percent leaking valves.
V sub L Number of valves found leaking excluding nonrepairables as provided in
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section.
V sub T Total valves monitored.
V sub C Optional credit for removed valves 0.67 X net number (i.e., total
removed-total added) of valves in VHAP service removed from process unit after the
applicability date set forth in Sec. 63.160(b) for existing process units, and
after the date of startup for new process units. If credits are not taken, then V
sub C 0.
(2) For use in determining monitoring frequency, as specified in paragraph (d)
of this section, the percent leaking valves shall be calculated as a rolling
average of two consecutive monitoring periods for monthly, quarterly, or semiannual
monitoring programs; and as an average of any three out of four consecutive
monitoring periods for annual monitoring programs.
(3)(i) Nonrepairable valves shall be included in the calculation of percent
leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as leaking and nonrepairable
and as required to comply with paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section. Otherwise, a
number of nonrepairable valves (identified and included in the percent leaking
calculation in a previous period) up to a maximum of 1 percent of the total number
of valves in VHAP service at a process unit may be excluded from calculation of
percent leaking valves for subsequent monitoring periods.
(ii) If the number of nonrepairable valves exceeds 1 percent of the total
number of valves in VHAP service at a process unit, the number of nonrepairable
valves exceeding 1 percent of the total number of valves in VHAP service shall be
included in the calculation of percent leaking valves.
(f)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable,
but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, except as provided
in Sec. 63.171.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(3) When a leak is repaired, the valve shall be monitored at least once within
the first 3 months after its repair.
(g) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the following
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts,
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts,
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts, and
(4) Injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as described in Sec. 63.181(i)(1), as an
unsafe-to- monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b) through
(d) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve determines that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a
consequence of complying with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section; and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve has a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(i) Any valve that is designated, as described in Sec. 63.181(i)(2), as a
difficult-to- monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve determines that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a
support surface;
(2) The process unit within which the valve is located is an existing process
unit; and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per calendar year.
(j) Any equipment located at a plant site with fewer than 250 valves in VHAP
service is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Except
as provided in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, the owner or operator shall
monitor each valve in VHAP service for leaks once each quarter, or comply with
paragraphs (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section.
Sec. 63.169 Standards: Pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid
service; instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid service.
(a) Pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service, pressure
relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and instrumentation systems
shall be monitored within 5 calendar days by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b)
if evidence of a potential leak is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any
other detection method, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c). If a potential leak
in an instrumentation system is repaired as required in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section, it is not necessary to monitor the system for leaks by the method
specified in Sec. 63.180(b).
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per million or greater for
agitators, 1,000 parts per million or greater for pumps, or 500 parts per million
or greater for valves, connectors, instrumentation systems, and pressure relief
devices is measured, a leak is detected.
(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in
Sec. 63.171.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days
after each leak is detected.
(3) For instrumentation systems that are not monitored by the method specified
in Sec. 63.180(b), repaired shall mean that the visual, audible, olfactory, or
other indications of a leak have been eliminated; that no bubbles are observed at
potential leak sites during a leak check using soap solution; or that the system
will hold a test pressure.
(d) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the best
practices described under Sec. 63.168(g).
Sec. 63.170 Standards: Product accumulator vessels.
Each product accumulator vessel shall be equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting any leakage from the vessel to a control
device as described in Sec. 63.172, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c).
Sec. 63.171 Standards: Delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is allowed
if the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown. Repair of
this equipment shall occur by the end of the next process unit shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is allowed
for equipment that is isolated from the process and that does not remain in VHAP
service.
(c) Delay of repair for valves, connectors, and agitators is also allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator determines that emissions of purged material
resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely
to result from delay of repair, and
(2) When repair procedures are effected, the purged material is collected and
destroyed or recovered in a control device complying with Sec. 63.172.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps is also allowed if:{pg 62771}
(1) Repair requires replacing a single mechanical seal system with:
(i) A dual mechanical seal system that meets the requirements of Sec.
63.163(e),
(ii) a pump that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.163(f), or
(iii) a closed-vent system control device that meets the requirements of Sec.
63.163(g); and
(2) Repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a process unit shutdown will be allowed for a valve
if valve assembly replacement is necessary during the process unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted, and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies were depleted. Delay of repair beyond the
next process unit shutdown will not be allowed unless the next process unit
shutdown occurs sooner than 6 months after the first process unit shutdown.
Sec. 63.172 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.
(a) Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices used to
comply with provisions of this Subpart shall comply with the provisions of this
section, except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c).
(b) Vapor recovery systems (e.g., condensers and adsorbers) shall be designed
and operated to recover the organic emissions vented to them with an efficiency of
95 percent or greater.
(c) Enclosed combustion devices shall be designed and operated to reduce the
organic emissions vented to them with an efficiency of 95 percent or greater or to
provide a minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature of 760
sup oC.
(d) Flares used to comply with this Subpart shall comply with the requirements
of 40 CFR 60.18 of this chapter.
(e) Owners or operators of control devices that are used to comply with the
provisions of this Subpart shall monitor these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in conformance with their design.
(f)(1) Closed-vent systems shall be designed for and operated with an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million above background and by
visual inspections, as determined by the methods specified as Sec. 63.180(c).
(2) Closed-vent systems shall be monitored to determine compliance with this
section initially in accordance with 40 CFR 61.05 of this chapter, annually, and at
other times requested by the Administrator, except equipment components on closed
vent systems meeting the descriptions in Sec. 63.168(h) and Sec. 63.174(f) through
(h) shall meet the requirements of those sections.
(3) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per
million above background and visual inspections, shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(g) Whenever VHAP emissions are vented to a closed-vent system or control
device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart, such system or control
device shall be operating.
Sec. 63.173 Standards: Agitators in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
(a)(1) Each agitator shall be monitored monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in Sec. 63.180(b), except as provided in Sec. 63.162(c).
(2) Each agitator shall be checked by visual inspection each calendar week for
indications of liquids dripping from the agitator.
(b)(1) If an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per million or greater is
measured, a leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the agitator, a leak is
detected.
(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in
Sec. 63.171.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Any agitator equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and
transporting any leakage from the seal or seals to a control device that complies
with the requirements of Sec. 63.172 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs
(a) through (c).
Sec. 63.174 Standards: Connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor all
connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service, except as provided in Sec.
63.162(c), and (f) through (h) of this section, at the intervals specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) The connectors shall be monitored to detect leaks by the method specified
in Sec. 63.180(b).
(2) If an instrument reading greater than or equal to 500 parts per million is
measured, a leak is detected.
(b) The owner or operator shall monitor for leaks at the intervals specified
below.
(1) Within the first 12 months after the specified applicability dates
described in Sec. 63.160(b) for each group of existing process units, the owner or
operator shall monitor all connectors, except as provided in paragraphs (f) through
(h) of this section.
(2) Within the first 12 months after the beginning of startup or within 12
months after (insert date of promulgation in Federal Register), whichever is later,
for new process units, the owner or operator shall monitor all connectors, except
as provided in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section.
(3) After conducting the initial survey required in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, the owner or operator shall perform all subsequent monitoring of
connectors at the following frequencies, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section:
(i) Once per calendar year, if the percent leaking connectors in the process
unit was 0.5 percent or greater during the last required annual or biennial
monitoring period.
(ii) Once every 2 calendar years, if the percent leaking connectors was less
than 0.5 percent during the last required monitoring period. An owner or operator
may comply with this paragraph by monitoring at least 40 percent of the connectors
in the first year and the remainder of the connectors in the second year. The
percent leaking connectors will be calculated for the total of all monitoring
performed during the 2-year period.
(iii) If the owner or operator of a process unit in a biennial leak detection
and repair program calculates less than 0.5 percent leaking connectors from the 2-
year monitoring period, the owner or operator may monitor the connectors one time
every 4 years. An owner or operator may comply with the requirements of this
paragraph by monitoring at least 20 percent of the connectors each year until all
connectors have been monitored within 4 years.
(iv) If a process unit complying with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section using a 4-year monitoring interval program has greater than or equal to 0.5
percent but less than 1 percent leaking connectors, the owner or operator shall
increase the monitoring frequency to one time every 2 years. An owner or operator
may comply with the requirements of this paragraph by monitoring at least 40
percent of the connectors in the first year and the remainder of the connectors in
the second year. The owner or operator may again elect to use the provisions of
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of {pg 62772} this section when the percent leaking
connectors decreases to less than 0.5 percent.
(v) If a process unit complying with requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section using a 4-year monitoring interval program has 1 percent or greater leaking
connectors, the owner or operator shall increase the monitoring frequency to one
time per year. The owner or operator may again elect to use the provisions of
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section when the percent leaking connectors decreases
to less than 0.5 percent.
(4) After December 31, 1992, if an owner or operator eliminates a connector
subject to monitoring under paragraph (b) of this section either by welding it
completely around the circumference of the interface or by physically removing the
connector and welding the pipe together, the owner or operator shall check the
integrity of the weld by monitoring it according to the procedures in Sec.
63.180(b) or by testing using X-ray, acoustic monitoring, hydrotesting, or other
applicable method. Welds created after December 31, 1992, but before (insert date
of publication of promulgation in Federal Register) shall be monitored or tested by
(insert date 3 months after promulgation in Federal Register); welds created after
(insert date of publication of promulgation in Federal Register) shall be monitored
or tested within 3 months after being welded. If an inadequate weld is found or the
connector is not welded completely around the circumference, the connector is not
considered a welded connector as described in Sec. 63.161, and is therefore not
exempt from the provisions of this Subpart. Connectors welded on or after December
31, 1992, can count as connectors removed from the process and be eligible for
removed connector credits as described in paragraph (i) of this section.
(c)(1)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, each
connector that has been opened or has otherwise had the seal broken shall be
monitored for leaks within the first 3 months after being returned to VHAP service,
including those determined to be nonrepairable prior to process unit shutdown. If
the follow-up monitoring detects a leak, it shall be repaired according to the
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section, unless it is determined to be
nonrepairable, in which case it is counted as a nonrepairable for the purposes of
paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
(ii) As an alternative to the requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section, an owner or operator may choose to calculate percent leaking connectors
for the monitoring periods described in paragraph (b) of this section, by setting
the nonrepairable component, C sub AN, in the equation in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section to zero for all monitoring periods.
(iii) An owner or operator may switch alternatives described in paragraphs
(c)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section at the end of the current monitoring period he
is in, provided that he notify the Administrator as required in Sec. 63.182(b)(7)
and begin the new alternative in annual monitoring. The initial monitoring in the
new alternative shall be completed no later than 12 months after notification of
the Administrator of the switch.
(2) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
each screwed connector 5.08 centimeters or less installed in a process unit before
December 31, 1992, may:
(i) Comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.169, and
(ii) Be monitored for leaks within the first 3 months after being returned to
VHAP service after having been opened or otherwise had the seal broken. If the
follow-up monitoring detects a leak, it shall be repaired according to the
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, except as provided in
paragraph (g) of this section and in Sec. 63.171. A first attempt at repair shall
be made no later than 5 calendar days after the leak is detected.
(e) If a leak is detected, the connector shall be monitored for leaks within
the first 3 months after its repair.
(f) Any connector that is designated, as described in Sec. 63.181(i)(1), as an
unsafe-to-monitor connector is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section if:
(1) The owner or operator determines that the connector is unsafe to monitor
because personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a result of complying
with paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section; and
(2) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires monitoring of the
connector as frequent as practicable during safe to monitor periods.
(g) Any connector that is designated, as described in Sec. 63.181(i)(3), as an
unsafe-to-repair connector is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a), (d),
and (e) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator determines that repair personnel would be exposed to
an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (d) of this
section; and
(2) The connector will be repaired before the end of the next scheduled process
unit shutdown.
(h)(1) Any connector that is inaccessible or is glass or glass-lined, is exempt
from the monitoring requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and from the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec. 63.181 and Sec. 63.182. An
inaccessible connector is one that is:
(i) Buried;
(ii) Insulated in a manner that prevents access to the connector by a monitor
probe;
(iii) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevents access to the connector
by a monitor probe; or
(iv) Unable to be reached from a 7.6-meter (25-foot) portable scaffold on the
ground, and is greater than 2 meters above a support surface.
(2) If any inaccessible or glass or glass-lined connector is observed by
visual, audible, olfactory, or other means to be leaking, the leak shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak
is detected, except as provided in Sec. 63.171 and paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(i) For use in determining the monitoring frequency, as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, the percent leaking connectors shall be calculated as follows:
(1) For the first monitoring period, use the following equation:
%C sub L C sub L/(C sub t+C sub C)X100
where:
% C sub L Percent leaking connectors.
C sub L Number of connectors measured at 500 parts per million or greater, by
the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b).
C sub t Total number of monitored connectors in the process unit.
C sub C Optional credit for removed connectors 0.67Xnet (i.e., total removed-
total added) number of connectors in VHAP service removed from the process unit
after the applicability date set forth in Sec. 63.160(b) for existing process
units, and after the date of startup for new process units. If credits are not
taken, then C sub C 0.
(2) For subsequent monitoring periods, use the following equation:
%C sub L (C sub L-C sub AN)/(C sub t+C sub C) X100
where:
% C sub L Percent leaking connectors.
C sub L Number of connectors, including nonrepairables, measured at 500 parts
per million or greater, by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b).
C sub AN Number of allowable nonrepairable connectors, as determined by
monitoring required in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) of this section, not to exceed 2
percent of the total connector population, C sub t.
C sub t Total number of monitored connectors, including nonrepairables, in the
process unit.
C sub C Optional credit for removed connectors 0.67Xnet number (i.e., total
removed-total added) of connectors in VHAP service removed from the process unit
after the applicability date set forth in Sec. 63.160(b) for existing process
units, and after the date of startup for new process units. If credits are not
taken, then C sub C 0.
Sec. 63.175 Quality improvement program for valves.
(a) In Phase III, to comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.168(d)(1)(ii), an
owner or operator may elect to comply with one of the alternative quality
improvement programs specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The
decision to use one of these alternative provisions to comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.168(d)(1)(ii) must be made during the first year of Phase III for
existing process units and for new process units.
(b) An owner or operator of a process unit subject to the requirements of
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section shall comply with those requirements until the
process unit has fewer than 2 percent leaking valves, calculated as a rolling
average of 2 consecutive quarters, as specified in Sec. 63.168(e).
(c) After the process unit has fewer than 2 percent leaking valves, the owner
or operator may elect to comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.168, to continue
to comply with the requirements in paragraph (e) or (d), if appropriate of this
section, or both. If the owner or operator elects to continue the quality
improvement program, the owner or operator is exempt from the requirements for
performance trials as specified in paragraph (e)(6) of this section, or further
progress as specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, as long as the process
unit has fewer than 2 percent leaking valves. If the owner or operator elects to
comply with both paragraph (e) of this section and Sec. 63.168, he may also take
advantage of the lower monitoring frequencies associated with lower leak rates in
Sec. 63.168. If the owner or operator elects not to continue the quality
improvement program, the program is no longer an option if the process unit again
exceeds 2 percent leaking valves, and in such case, monthly monitoring will be
required.
(d) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator elects to
use a quality improvement program to demonstrate further progress:
(1) The owner or operator shall continue to comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.168 except each valve shall be monitored quarterly.
(2) The owner or operator shall collect the following data, and maintain
records as required in Sec. 63.181(m), for each valve in each process unit subject
to the quality improvement program:
(i) The maximum instrument reading observed in each monitoring observation
before repair, the response factor for the stream if appropriate, the instrument
model number, and date of the observation.
(ii) Whether the valve is in gas or light liquid service.
(iii) If a leak is detected, the repair methods used and the instrument
readings after repair.
(3) The owner or operator shall continue to collect data on the valves as long
as the process unit remains in the quality improvement program.
(4) The owner or operator must demonstrate progress in reducing the percent
leaking valves each quarter the process unit is subject to the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Demonstration of progress shall mean that for each quarter there is at
least a 10-percent reduction in the percent leaking valves from the percent leaking
valves determined for the preceding monitoring period. The percent leaking valves
shall be calculated as a rolling average of two consecutive quarters of monitoring
data. The percent reduction shall be calculated using the rolling average percent
leaking valves, according to the following:
%LV sub R (%LV sub AVG1-%LV sub AVG2)/%LV sub AVG1X100
where:
%LV sub R Percent leaking valve reduction.
%LV sub AVG1 (%V sub Li+%V sub Li+1)/2.
%LV sub AVG2 (%V sub Li+1+%V sub Li+2)/2.
where:
%V sub Li, %V sub Li+1, %V sub Li+2 are percent leaking valves calculated for
subsequent monitoring periods, i, i+1, i+2.
(ii) An owner or operator who fails for two consecutive rolling averages to
demonstrate at least a 10-percent reduction per quarter in percent leaking valves,
or that the overall average percent reduction based on two or more rolling averages
is less than 10 percent per quarter, shall either comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.168(d)(1) using monthly monitoring or shall comply using a quality
improvement program for technology review as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section. If the owner or operator elects to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section, the schedule for performance trials and valve
replacements remains as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator elects to
use a quality improvement program of technology review and improvement:
(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.168
except the requirement for monthly monitoring in paragraph Sec. 63.168(d)(1)(i)
does not apply.
(2) The owner or operator shall collect the data specified below, and maintain
records as required in Sec. 63.181(m), for each valve in each process unit subject
to the quality improvement program. The data may be collected and the records may
be maintained on a process unit or group of process units basis.
(i) The data shall include the following:
(A) Valve type (e.g., ball, gate, check); valve manufacturer; valve design
(e.g., external stem or actuating mechanism, flanged body); materials of
construction; packing material; and year installed.
(B) Service characteristics of the stream such as operating pressure,
temperature, line diameter, and corrosivity.
(C) Whether the valve is in gas or light liquid service.
(D) The maximum instrument readings observed in each monitoring observation
before repair, response factor for the stream if adjusted, instrument model number,
and date of the observation.
(E) If a leak is detected, the repair methods used and the instrument readings
after repair.
(F) If the data will be analyzed as part of a larger analysis program involving
data from other plants or other types of process units, a description of any
maintenance or quality assurance programs used in the process unit that are
intended to improve emission performance.
(3) The owner or operator shall continue to collect data on the valves as long
as the process unit remains in the quality improvement program.
(4) The owner or operator shall inspect all valves removed from the process
unit due to leaks. The inspection shall determine which parts of the valve have
failed and shall include recommendations, as appropriate, for design changes or
changes in specifications to reduce leak potential.
(5)(i) The owner or operator shall analyze the data collected to comply with
the requirements of paragraph {pg 62774} (e)(2) of this section to determine the
services, operating or maintenance practices, and valve designs or technologies
that have poorer than average emission performance and those that have better than
average emission performance. The analysis shall determine if specific trouble
areas can be identified on the basis of service, operating conditions or
maintenance practices, equipment design, or other process specific factors.
(ii) The analysis shall also be used to identify any superior performing valve
technologies that are applicable to the service(s), operating conditions, or valve
designs associated with poorer than average emission performance. A superior
performing valve technology is one for which a group of such valves has a leak
frequency of less than 2 percent for specific applications in such a process unit.
A candidate superior performing valve technology is one demonstrated or reported in
the available literature or through a group study as having low emission
performance and as being capable of achieving less than 2 percent leaking valves in
the process unit.
(iii) The analysis shall include consideration of:
(A) The data obtained from the inspections of valves removed from the process
unit due to leaks,
(B) Information from the available literature and from the experience of other
plant sites that will identify valve designs or technologies and operating
conditions associated with low emission performance for specific services, and
(C) Information on limitations on the service conditions for the valve design
and operating conditions as well as information on maintenance procedures to ensure
continued low emission performance.
(iv) The data analysis may be conducted through an inter- or intra-company
program (or through some combination of the two approaches) and may be for a single
process unit, a company, or a group of process units.
(v) The first analysis of the data shall be completed no later than 18 months
after the start of Phase III. The first analysis shall be performed using a minimum
of two quarters of data. An analysis of the data shall be done each year the
process unit is in the quality improvement program.
(6) A trial evaluation program shall be conducted at each plant site for which
the data analysis does not identify superior performing valve designs or
technologies that can be applied to the operating conditions and services
identified as having poorer than average performance, except as provided in
paragraph (e)(6)(v) of this section. The trial program shall be used to evaluate
the feasibility of using in the process unit the valve designs or technologies that
have been identified by others as having low emission performance.
(i) The trial program shall include on-line trials of valves or operating and
maintenance practices that have been identified in the available literature or in
analysis by others as having the ability to perform with leak rates below 2 percent
in similar services, as having low probability of failure, or as having no external
actuating mechanism in contact with the process fluid. If any of the candidate
superior performing valve technologies is not included in the performance trials,
the reasons for rejecting specific technologies from consideration shall be
documented as required in Sec. 63.181(m)(6)(ii).
(ii) The number of valves in the trial evaluation program shall be the lesser
of 1 percent or 20 valves for programs involving single process units and the
lesser of 1 percent or 50 valves for programs involving groups of process units.
(iii) The trial evaluation program shall specify and include documentation of:
(A) The candidate superior performing valve designs or technologies to be
evaluated, the stages for evaluating the identified candidate valve designs or
technologies, including the estimated time period necessary to test the
applicability;
(B) The frequency of monitoring or inspection of the equipment;
(C) The range of operating conditions over which the component will be
evaluated; and
(D) Conclusions regarding the emission performance and the appropriate
operating conditions and services for the trial valves.
(iv) The performance trials shall initially be conducted for, at least, a 6-
month period beginning not later than 18 months after the start of Phase III. Not
later than 24 months after the start of Phase III, the owner or operator shall have
identified valve designs or technologies that, combined with appropriate process,
operating, and maintenance practices, operate with low emission performance for
specific applications in the process unit. The owner or operator shall continue to
conduct performance trials as long as no superior performing design or technology
has been identified, except as provided in paragraph (e)(6)(vi) of this section.
The compilation of candidate and demonstrated superior emission performance valve
designs or technologies shall be amended in the future, as appropriate, as
additional information and experience is obtained.
(v) Any plant site with fewer than 400 valves and owned by a corporation with
fewer than 100 total employees shall be exempt from trial evaluations of valves.
Plant sites exempt from the trial evaluations of valves shall begin the valve
replacement program at the start of the fourth year of Phase III.
(vi) An owner or operator who has conducted performance trials on all candidate
superior emission performance technologies suitable for the required applications
in the process unit may stop conducting performance trials provided that a superior
performing design or technology has been demonstrated or there are no technically
feasible candidate superior technologies remaining. The owner or operator shall
prepare an engineering evaluation documenting the physical, chemical, or
engineering basis for the judgment that the superior emission performance
technology is technically infeasible or demonstrating that it would not reduce
emissions.
(7) Each owner or operator who elects to use a quality improvement program for
technology review and improvement shall prepare and implement a valve quality
assurance program that details purchasing specifications and maintenance procedures
for all valves in the process unit. The quality assurance program may establish any
number of categories, or classes, of valves as needed to distinguish among
operating conditions and services associated with poorer than average emission
performance as well as those associated with better than average emission
performance. The quality assurance program shall be developed considering the
findings of the data analysis required under paragraph (e)(5) of this section, if
applicable, the findings of the trial evaluation required in paragraph (e)(6) of
this section, and the operating conditions in the process unit. The quality
assurance program shall be reviewed and, as appropriate, updated each year as long
as the process unit has 2 percent or more leaking valves.
(i) The quality assurance program shall:
(A) Establish minimum design standards for each category of valves. The design
standards shall specify known critical parameters such as tolerance, manufacturer,
materials of construction, previous usage, or other applicable identified critical
parameters;
(B) Require that all equipment orders specify the design standard (or minimum
tolerances) for the valve;
(C) Include a written procedure for bench testing of valves that specifies {pg
62775} performance criteria for acceptance of valves and specifies criteria for the
precision and accuracy of the test apparatus. All valves repaired off-line after
preparation of the quality assurance plan shall be benchtested for leaks. This
testing may be conducted by the owner or operator of the process unit, by the
vendor, or by a designated representative. The owner or operator shall install only
those valves that have been documented through bench testing to be nonleaking.
(D) Require that all valves repaired on-line be tested using the method
specified in Sec. 63.180(b) for leaks for 2 successive months, after repair.
(E) Provide for an audit procedure for quality control of purchased equipment
to ensure conformance with purchase specifications. The audit program may be
conducted by the owner or operator of the process unit or by a designated
representative.
(F) Detail off-line valve maintenance and repair procedures. These procedures
shall include provisions to ensure that rebuilt or refurbished valves will meet the
design specifications for the valve type and will operate such that emissions are
minimized.
(ii) The quality assurance program shall be established no later than the start
of the third year of Phase III for plant sites with 400 or more valves or owned by
a corporation with 100 or more employees; and no later than the start of the fourth
year of Phase III for plant sites with less than 400 valves and owned by a
corporation with less than 100 employees.
(8) Beginning at the start of the third year of Phase III for plant sites with
400 or more valves or owned by a corporation with 100 or more employees and at the
start of the fourth year of Phase III for plant sites with less than 400 valves and
owned by a corporation with less than 100 employees, each valve that is replaced
for any reason shall be replaced with a new or modified valve that complies with
the quality assurance standards for the valve category and that is identified as
superior emission performance technology. Superior emission performance technology
means valves or valve technologies identified with emission performance that,
combined with appropriate process, operating, and maintenance practices, will
result in less than 2 percent leaking valves for specific applications in a large
population, except as provided in paragraph (e)(8)(ii) of this section.
(i) The valves shall be maintained as specified in the quality assurance
program.
(ii) If a superior emission performance technology cannot be identified, then
valve replacement shall be with one of (if several) the lowest emission performance
technologies that has been identified for the specific application.
Sec. 63.176 Quality improvement program for pumps.
(a) In Phase III, if, on a 6-month rolling average, the greater of either 10
percent of the pumps in a process unit (or plant site) or three pumps in a process
unit (or plant site) leak, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements
of this section as specified below:
(1) Pumps that are in food/medical service or in polymerizing monomer service
shall comply with all requirements except for those specified in paragraph (d)(8)
of this section.
(2) Pumps that are not in food/medical or polymerizing monomer service shall
comply with all requirements of this section.
(b) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of this section
until the number of leaking pumps is less than the greater of either 10 percent of
the pumps or three pumps, calculated as a 6-month rolling average, in the process
unit (or plant site). Once the performance level is achieved, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.163.
(c) If in a subsequent monitoring period, the process unit (or plant site) has
greater than 10 percent of the pumps leaking or three pumps leaking (calculated as
a 6-month rolling average), the owner or operator shall resume the quality
improvement program starting at performance trials.
(d) The quality improvement program shall include the following:
(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.163.
(2) The owner or operator shall collect the following data, and maintain
records as required in Sec. 63.181(m), for each pump in each process unit (or plant
site) subject to the quality improvement program. The data may be collected and the
records may be maintained on a process unit or plant site basis.
(i) Pump type (e.g., piston, horizontal or vertical centrifugal, gear,
bellows); pump manufacturer; seal type and manufacturer; pump design (e.g.,
external shaft, flanged body); materials of construction; if applicable, barrier
fluid or packing material; and year installed.
(ii) Service characteristics of the stream such as discharge pressure,
temperature, flow rate, corrosivity, and annual operating hours.
(iii) The maximum instrument readings observed in each monitoring observation
before repair, response factor for the stream if appropriate, instrument model
number, and date of the observation.
(iv) If a leak is detected, the repair methods used and the instrument readings
after repair.
(v) If the data will be analyzed as part of a larger analysis program involving
data from other plants or other types of process units, a description of any
maintenance or quality assurance programs used in the process unit that are
intended to improve emission performance.
(3) The owner or operator shall continue to collect data on the pumps as long
as the process unit (or plant site) remains in the quality improvement program.
(4) The owner or operator shall inspect all pumps or pump seals which exhibited
frequent seal failures and were removed from the process unit due to leaks. The
inspection shall determine the probable cause of the pump seal failure or of the
pump leak and shall include recommendations, as appropriate, for design changes or
changes in specifications to reduce leak potential.
(5)(i) The owner or operator shall analyze the data collected to comply with
the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section to determine the services,
operating or maintenance practices, and pump or pump seal designs or technologies
that have poorer than average emission performance and those that have better than
average emission performance. The analysis shall determine if specific trouble
areas can be identified on the basis of service, operating conditions or
maintenance practices, equipment design, or other process specific factors.
(ii) The analysis shall also be used to determine if there are superior
performing pump or pump seal technologies that are applicable to the service(s),
operating conditions, or pump or pump seal designs associated with poorer than
average emission performance. A superior performing pump or pump seal technology is
one with a leak frequency of less than 10 percent for specific applications in the
process unit or plant site. A candidate superior performing pump or pump seal
technology is one demonstrated or reported in the available literature or through a
group study as having low emission performance and as being capable of achieving
less than 10 {pg 62776} percent leaking pumps in the process unit (or plant site).
(iii) The analysis shall include consideration of:
(A) The data obtained from the inspections of pumps and pump seals removed from
the process unit due to leaks;
(B) Information from the available literature and from the experience of other
plant sites that will identify pump designs or technologies and operating
conditions associated with low emission performance for specific services; and
(C) Information on limitations on the service conditions for the pump seal
technology operating conditions as well as information on maintenance procedures to
ensure continued low emission performance.
(iv) The data analysis may be conducted through an inter- or intra-company
program (or through some combination of the two approaches) and may be for a single
process unit, a plant site, a company, or a group of process units.
(v) The first analysis of the data shall be completed no later than 18 months
after the start of the quality improvement program. The first analysis shall be
performed using a minimum of 6 months of data. An analysis of the data shall be
done each year the process unit is in the quality improvement program.
(6) A trial evaluation program shall be conducted at each plant site for which
the data analysis does not identify use of superior performing pump seal technology
or pumps that can be applied to the areas identified as having poorer than average
performance, except as provided in paragraph (d)(6)(v) of this section. The trial
program shall be used to evaluate the feasibility of using in the process unit (or
plant site) the pump designs or seal technologies, and operating and maintenance
practices that have been identified by others as having low emission performance.
(i) The trial program shall include on-line trials of pump seal technologies or
pump designs and operating and maintenance practices that have been identified in
the available literature or in analysis by others as having the ability to perform
with leak rates below 10 percent in similar services, as having low probability of
failure, or as having no external actuating mechanism in contact with the process
fluid. If any of the candidate superior performing pump seal technologies or pumps
is not included in the performance trials, the reasons for rejecting specific
technologies from consideration shall be documented as required in Sec.
63.181(m)(6)(ii).
(ii) The number of pump seal technologies or pumps in the trial evaluation
program shall be the lesser of 1 percent or two pumps for programs involving single
process units and the lesser of 1 percent or five pumps for programs involving a
plant site or groups of process units. The minimum number of pumps or pump seal
technologies in a trial program shall be one.
(iii) The trial evaluation program shall specify and include documentation of:
(A) The candidate superior performing pump seal designs or technologies to be
evaluated, the stages for evaluating the identified candidate pump designs or pump
seal technologies, including the time period necessary to test the applicability;
(B) The frequency of monitoring or inspection of the equipment;
(C) The range of operating conditions over which the component will be
evaluated; and
(D) Conclusions regarding the emission performance and the appropriate
operating conditions and services for the trial pump seal technologies or pumps.
(iv) The performance trials shall initially be conducted, at least, for a 6-
month period beginning not later than 18 months after the start of the quality
improvement program. No later than 24 months after the start of the quality
improvement program, the owner or operator shall have identified pump seal
technologies or pump designs that, combined with appropriate process, operating,
and maintenance practices, operate with low emission performance for specific
applications in the process unit. The owner or operator shall continue to conduct
performance trials as long as no superior performing design or technology has been
identified, except as provided in paragraph (d)(6)(vi) of this section. The initial
list of superior emission performance pump designs or pump seal technologies shall
be amended in the future, as appropriate, as additional information and experience
is obtained.
(v) Any plant site with fewer than 400 valves and owned by a corporation with
fewer than 100 employees shall be exempt from trial evaluations of pump seals or
pump designs. Plant sites exempt from the trial evaluations of pumps shall begin
the pump seal or pump replacement program at the start of the fourth year of the
quality improvement program.
(vi) An owner or operator who has conducted performance trials on all
alternative superior emission performance technologies suitable for the required
applications in the process unit may stop conducting performance trials provided
that a superior performing design or technology has been demonstrated or there are
no technically feasible alternative superior technologies remaining. The owner or
operator shall prepare an engineering evaluation documenting the physical,
chemical, or engineering basis for the judgment that the superior emission
performance technology is technically infeasible or demonstrating that it would not
reduce emissions.
(7) Each owner or operator shall prepare and implement a pump quality assurance
program that details purchasing specifications and maintenance procedures for all
pumps and pump seals in the process unit. The quality assurance program may
establish any number of categories, or classes, of pumps as needed to distinguish
among operating conditions and services associated with poorer than average
emission performance as well as those associated with better than average emission
performance. The quality assurance program shall be developed considering the
findings of the data analysis required under paragraph (d)(5) of this section, if
applicable, the findings of the trial evaluation required in paragraph (d)(6) of
this section, and the operating conditions in the process unit. The quality
assurance program shall be updated each year as long as the process unit has the
greater of either 10 percent or more leaking pumps or has three leaking pumps.
(i) The quality assurance program shall:
(A) Establish minimum design standards for each category of pumps or pump seal
technology. The design standards shall specify known critical parameters such as
tolerance, manufacturer, materials of construction, previous usage, or other
applicable identified critical parameters;
(B) Require that all equipment orders specify the design standard (or minimum
tolerances) for the pump or the pump seal;
(C) Provide for an audit procedure for quality control of purchased equipment
to ensure conformance with purchase specifications. The audit program may be
conducted by the owner or operator of the plant site or process unit or by a
designated representative; and
(D) Detail off-line pump maintenance and repair procedures. These procedures
shall include provisions to ensure that rebuilt or refurbished pumps and pump seals
will meet the design specifications for the pump category and will operate such
that emissions are minimized{pg 62777}.
(ii) The quality assurance program shall be established no later than the start
of the third year of the quality improvement program for plant sites with 400 or
more valves or 100 or more employees; and no later than the start of the fourth
year of the quality improvement program for plant sites with less than 400 valves
and less than 100 employees.
(8) Beginning at the start of the third year of the quality improvement program
for plant sites with 400 or more valves or 100 or more employees and at the start
of the fourth year of the quality improvement program for plant sites with less
than 400 valves and less than 100 employees, the owner or operator shall replace,
as described in paragraphs (d)(8) (i) and (ii) of this section, the pumps or pump
seals that are not superior emission performance technology with pumps or pump
seals that have been identified as superior emission performance technology and
that comply with the quality assurance standards for the pump category. Superior
emission performance technology is that category or design of pumps or pump seals
with emission performance which, when combined with appropriate process, operating,
and maintenance practices, will result in less than 10 percent leaking pumps for
specific applications in the process unit or plant site. Superior emission
performance technology includes material or design changes to the existing pump,
pump seal, seal support system, installation of multiple mechanical seals or
equivalent, or pump replacement.
(i) Pumps or pump seals shall be replaced at the rate of 20 percent per year
based on the total number of pumps in light liquid service. The calculated value
shall be rounded to the nearest nonzero integer value. The minimum number of pumps
or pump seals shall be one. Pump replacement shall continue until all pumps subject
to the requirements of Sec. 63.163 are pumps determined to be superior performance
technology.
(ii) The owner or operator may delay replacement of pump seals or pumps with
superior technology until the next planned process unit shutdown, provided the
number of pump seals and pumps replaced is equivalent to the 20 percent or greater
annual replacement rate.
(iii) The pumps shall be maintained as specified in the quality assurance
program.
Sec. 63.177 Alternative means of emission limitation: General.
(a) Permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation under section
112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act shall be governed by the following procedures:
(b) Where the standard is an equipment, design, or operational requirement:
(1) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying emission performance test data for an alternative means of
emission limitation.
(2) The Administrator will compare test data for the means of emission
limitation to test data for the equipment, design, and operational requirements.
(3) The Administrator may condition the permission on requirements that may be
necessary to assure operation and maintenance to achieve the same emission
reduction as the equipment, design, and operational requirements.
(c) Where the standard is a work practice:
(1) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an alternative means of emission limitation.
(2) For each source for which permission is requested, the emission reduction
achieved by the required work practices shall be demonstrated for a minimum period
of 12 months.
(3) For each source for which permission is requested, the emission reduction
achieved by the alternative means of emission limitation shall be demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall commit, in writing,
for each source to work practices that provide for emission reductions equal to or
greater than the emission reductions achieved by the required work practices.
(5) The Administrator will compare the demonstrated emission reduction for the
alternative means of emission limitation to the demonstrated emission reduction for
the required work practices and will consider the commitment in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section.
(6) The Administrator may condition the permission on requirements that may be
necessary to assure operation and maintenance to achieve the same or greater
emission reduction as the required work practices of this subpart.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a unique approach to demonstrate the
alternative means of emission limitation.
(e)(1) Manufacturers of equipment used to control equipment leaks of a VHAP may
apply to the Administrator for permission for an alternative means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction in emissions of the VHAP achieved by the
equipment, design, and operational requirements of this Subpart.
(2) The Administrator will grant permission according to the provisions of
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
Sec. 63.178 Alternative means of emission limitation: Batch processes.
(a) As an alternative to complying with the requirements of Secs. 63.163
through 63.171, Secs. 63.173 and 63.174, and Secs. 63.175 and 63.176, an owner or
operator of a batch process that operates in VHAP service during the calendar year
may comply with one of the standards specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, or the owner or operator may petition for approval of an alternative
standard under the provisions of Sec. 63.177. The alternative standards of this
section provide the options of pressure testing or monitoring the equipment for
leaks.
(b) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator elects to
use pressure testing of batch product-process equipment to demonstrate compliance
with this subpart. An owner or operator who complies with the provisions of this
paragraph is exempt from the monitoring provisions of Sec. 63.163, Secs. 63.168 and
63.169, Sec. 63.171, Secs. 63.173 through 63.176 of this subpart.
(1) Each time equipment is reconfigured for production of a product or
intermediate, the batch product-process equipment train shall be pressure-tested
for leaks before VHAP is first fed to the equipment and the equipment is placed in
VHAP service. When the seal is broken between two items of equipment or when
equipment is changed in a section of the batch product-process equipment train,
pressure testing is required only for the new or disturbed equipment. Each batch
product process that operates in VHAP service during a calendar year shall be
pressure tested at least once during that calendar year.
(2) The batch product process equipment shall be tested with a gas using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.180(f) or with a liquid using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.180(g).
(3)(i) For pressure tests using a gas, a leak is detected if the rate of change
in pressure is greater than 6.9 kilopascals (1 psig) in 1 hour or if there is
visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid loss.
(ii) For pressure tests using a liquid, a leak is detected if there are
indications {pg 62778} of liquids dripping or if there is other evidence of fluid
loss.
(4)(i) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired and the batch product-
process equipment shall be retested before VHAP is fed to the equipment.
(ii) If a batch product-process fails the retest or the second of two
consecutive pressure tests, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 30 calendar days after the equipment is placed in VHAP service, provided
the conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section are met.
(c) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator elects to
monitor the equipment to detect leaks by the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b) to
demonstrate compliance with this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of Secs. 63.163
through 63.170, and Secs. 63.172 through 63.176.
(2) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks by the method specified in Sec.
63.180(b) when the equipment is in VHAP service, in use with an acceptable
surrogate volatile organic compound which is not a VHAP, or is in use with any
other detectable gas or vapor.
(3) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks as specified below:
(i) Each time the equipment is reconfigured for the production of a product,
the reconfigured equipment shall be monitored for leaks within 30 days of being
returned to VHAP service. This initial monitoring of reconfigured equipment shall
not be included in determining percent leaking equipment.
(ii) Connectors shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.174.
(iii) Equipment other than connectors shall be monitored at the frequencies
specified in the following table by the proportion of the year the batch product-
process equipment train is operating with processes that use VHAP and the
monitoring frequency for continuous processes.
Batch process 0 to <25%
Equivalent continuous process monitoring frequency time in use
Monthly Quarterly
Quarterly Annually
Semiannually Annually.
Batch process 25 to <50%
Equivalent continuous process monitoring frequency time in use
Monthly Quarterly
Quarterly Semiannually
Semiannually Annually.
Batch process 50 to <75%
Equivalent continuous process monitoring frequency time in use
Monthly Bimonthly
Quarterly Three times
Semiannually Semiannually.
Batch process 75 to 100%
Equivalent continuous process monitoring frequency time in use
Monthly Monthly
Quarterly Quarterly
Semiannually Semiannually.
(iv) Valves may be monitored once per year and pumps and agitators may be
monitored once per quarter if the time each individual item of equipment is in VHAP
service is less than 2,190 hours in a calendar year.
(v) The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this
section are not requirements for monitoring at specific intervals and can be
adjusted to accommodate process operations. An owner or operator may monitor
anytime during the specified monitoring period (e.g., month, quarter, year),
provided the monitoring is conducted at a reasonable interval after completion of
the last monitoring campaign. For example, if the equipment is not operating during
the scheduled monitoring period, the monitoring can be done during the next period
when the process is operating.
(4) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(d) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is allowed
if the replacement equipment is not available providing the following conditions
are met:
(1) Equipment supplies have been depleted and supplies had been sufficiently
stocked before the supplies were depleted.
(2) The repair is made no later than 10 calendar days after delivery of the
replacement equipment.
Sec. 63.179 Alternative means of emission limitation: Enclosed-vented process
units.
Process units enclosed in such a manner that all emissions from equipment leaks
are vented through a closed-vent system to a control device meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.172 are exempt from the monitoring requirements of Sec.
63.163, Secs. 63.168 and 63.169, and Secs. 63.173 and 63.174. The enclosure shall
be maintained under a negative pressure at all times while the process unit is in
operation to ensure that all emissions are routed to a control device.
Sec. 63.180 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and procedures requirements provided in this section.
(b) Monitoring, as required under this subpart, shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with Method 21.
(2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 0.2 parts per million of hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii)(A) For Phase I, a mixture of methane in air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 parts per million.
(B) For Phase II, a mixture of methane and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 parts per million for agitators, 5,000 parts
per million for pumps, and 500 parts per million for all other equipment, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section.
(C) For Phase III, a mixture of methane and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 parts per million methane for agitators; 2,000
parts per million for pumps in food/medical service; 5,000 parts per million for
pumps in polymerizing monomer service; 1,000 parts per million for all other pumps;
and 500 parts per million for all other equipment, except as provided in paragraph
(b)(4)(iii) of this section.
(iii) The instrument may be calibrated at a higher methane concentration up to
2,000 parts per million than the leak definition concentration for a specific piece
of equipment for monitoring that piece of equipment. The instrument may not be
calibrated at a lower methane concentration than the leak definition concentration
for a specific piece of equipment.
(5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in Reference Method
21.{pg 62779}
(6) The instrument response factors shall be considered in the following
manner:
(i) The response factors used shall be the instrument response factor
determined for the individual VHAP at 500 parts per million. The response factors
may be obtained from the available literature, the instrument manufacturer, or
determined for the specific instrument and VHAP.
(ii) Chemical composition of individual process streams may be determined by
sampling, engineering calculations, or process knowledge. A separate determination
for each stream is not necessary if all or portions of the process unit can be
shown to exhibit similar composition. The basis for all process stream composition
determinations shall be documented as required in Sec. 63.181(b)(11).
(iii) If the response factors at 500 parts per million for the VHAP's that
account for 90 percent or more by weight of the process stream are all less than 3,
the instrument readings may be used without adjustment for response factors.
(iv) If any of the response factors at 500 parts per million for the VHAP's
that account for 90 percent or more by weight of the process stream is 3 or
greater, then a weighted average response factor for the VHAP in the process stream
shall be calculated using the procedures specified in paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this
section. If the process stream weighted average response factor is less than 3, the
instrument readings may be used without adjustment for response factors. If the
process stream weighted average response factor is greater than 3, the instrument
readings shall be adjusted for response factors as indicated below:
(A) Adjust the instrument readings by multiplying by the response factor;
(B) Select another instrument, determine or obtain instrument response factors
for the VHAP in question, and evaluate the need for adjustment as specified in
paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of this section; or
(C) Calibrate the instrument with a different reference compound or mixture
(i.e., one of the VHAP, a VOC other than methane, or the process stream mixture) so
that the instrument has a response factor for 90 percent of the VHAP or for the
process stream less than 3.
(v) The process stream average response factor shall be calculated as follows:
{SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
RF sub avg Weighted average response factor.
%C sub i Molar fraction, or volume percent if in gaseous form, of organic
compound i in the process stream.
RF sub Ci Response factor of the instrument for organic compound i at 500 parts
per million.
(c) When equipment is tested for compliance as required in Secs. 63.164(i) and
63.165, and Sec. 63.172(f), the test shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b) (1) through (4) of this section shall
apply.
(2) The background level shall be determined, as set forth in Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60 of this chapter.
(3) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60 of this chapter.
(4) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration indicated by
the instrument and the background level is compared with 500 parts per million for
determining compliance.
(d)(1) Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably be
expected to contain equipment in VHAP service is presumed to be in VHAP service
unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in VHAP service, it must be
determined that the percent VHAP content can be reasonably expected not to exceed 5
percent by weight during the calendar year. For purposes of determining the percent
VHAP content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment,
Method 18 shall be used.
(2)(i) An owner or operator may use good engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to determine that the percent VHAP
content does not exceed 5 percent by weight. When an owner or operator and the
Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in VHAP service,
however, the procedures in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be used to
resolve the disagreement.
(ii) Conversely, the owner or operator may determine that the VHAP content of
the process fluid does not exceed 5 percent by weight by, for example, accounting
for 98 percent of the content and showing that VHAP is less than 3 percent.
(3) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in VHAP
service, the determination can be revised after following the procedures in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, or by documenting that a change in the process or
raw materials no longer causes the equipment to be in VHAP service.
(4) Samples used in determining the percent VHAP content shall be
representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the equipment.
(e) Reference methods used in determining compliance with flares are those
required in Sec. 60.18 of this chapter.
(f) The following procedures shall be used to pressure test batch product-
process equipment using a gas (e.g., air or nitrogen) to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of Sec. 63.178(b)(3)(i).
(1) The batch product-process equipment train shall be pressurized with a gas
to the operating pressure of the equipment. The equipment shall not be tested at a
pressure greater than the pressure setting of the lowest relief valve setting.
(2) Once the test pressure is obtained, the gas source shall be shut off.
(3) The test shall continue for not less than 15 minutes unless it can be
determined in a shorter period of time that the allowable rate of pressure drop was
exceeded. The pressure in the batch product-process equipment shall be measured
after the gas source is shut off and at the end of the test period. The rate of
change in pressure in the batch product-process equipment shall be calculated using
the following equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
where:
DP / t
Change in pressure, psig/hr.
P sub f Final pressure, psig.
P sub i Initial pressure, psig.
t sub f-t sub i Elapsed time, hours.
(4) The pressure shall be measured using a pressure measurement device (gauge,
manometer, or equivalent) which has a precision of plus or minus 2.5 millimeter
mercury in the range of test pressure and is capable of measuring pressures up to
the relief set pressure of the pressure relief device.
(g) The following procedures shall be used to pressure-test batch product-
process equipment using a liquid to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.178(b)(3)(ii).
(1) The batch product-process equipment train, or section of the train, shall
be filled with the test liquid (e.g., water, alcohol). Once the equipment is
filled, the liquid source shall be shut off.
(2) The test shall be conducted for a period of at least 60 minutes, unless it
can be determined in a shorter period of time that the test is a failure.
(3) Each seal in the equipment being tested shall be inspected for indications
of liquid dripping or other indications of fluid loss. If there are any indications
of liquids dripping or of fluid loss, a leak is detected. (Sec. 114 of the Clean
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414)).
Sec. 63.181 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) An owner or operator of more than one process unit subject to the
provisions of this subpart may comply with the recordkeeping requirements for these
process units in one recordkeeping system if the system identifies each record by
process unit and the program being implemented (e.g., quarterly monitoring, quality
improvement) for each type of equipment. All records and information required by
this section shall be maintained in a manner that can be readily accessed at the
plant site. This could include physically locating the records at the plant site or
accessing the records from a central location by computer at the plant site.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the following
information pertaining to all equipment in each process unit subject to the
requirements in Secs. 63.162 through 63.174 shall be recorded:
(1)(i) A list of identification numbers for equipment (except connectors exempt
from monitoring and recordkeeping identified in Sec. 63.174 and instrumentation
systems) subject to the requirements of this Subpart and a site layout showing the
relative location of the equipment in the process unit. Connectors need not be
individually identified if all connectors in a designated area or length of pipe
subject to the provisions of this Subpart are identified as a group, and the number
of connectors subject is indicated.
(ii) A table listing the monitoring frequency and other provisions of this
Subpart that are being implemented for each item of equipment.
(iii) Physical tagging of the equipment to indicate that it is in VHAP service
is not required. Equipment subject to the provisions of this Subpart may be
identified on a plant site plan, in log entries, or by other appropriate methods.
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers for compressors that the owner or
operator elects to designate as operating with an instrument reading of less than
500 parts per million above background, under the provisions of Sec. 63.164(i).
(ii) The designation of this equipment as subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.164(i) shall be signed by the owner or operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with Sec. 63.165(a).
(4)(i) The dates and results of each compliance test required in Secs.
63.164(i) and 63.165.
(ii) The background level measured during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of equipment during
each compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for equipment in vacuum service.
(6) Instrumentation system identification. Individual components in the
instrumentation system need not be identified.
(7) A list of identification numbers for equipment in VHAP service less than
300 hours per year within a process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart
under Sec. 63.160.
(8)(i) Identification, either by list, location (area or grouping), or tagging
of connectors disturbed since the last monitoring period required in Sec.
63.174(b), as described in Sec. 63.174(c).
(ii) The date and results of follow-up monitoring as required in Sec.
63.174(c). If identification of disturbed connectors is made by location, then all
connectors within the designated location shall be monitored.
(9) A list of reconfigured equipment in batch product process units since the
last monitoring period required in Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(ii) through (iv), as described
in Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(i).
(10) A list of valves removed from and added to the process unit, as considered
in Sec. 63.168(e)(1), and a list of connectors removed from and added to the
process unit, as considered in Sec. 63.174(i)(1). This is not required unless the
net credits for removed valves and connectors are expected to be used.
(11) Documentation of process stream composition as required in Sec.
63.180(b)(6)(ii).
(12) Identification of screwed connectors subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.174(c)(2). Identification can be by area or grouping as long as the total number
within each group or area is recorded.
(13) Identification of welded connectors monitored or tested as required in
Sec. 63.174(b)(4), the date of the weld, and the date of monitoring or testing.
(c) When each leak is detected as specified in Secs. 63.163 and 63.164; Secs.
63.168 and 63.169; and Secs. 63.172 through 63.174, the following requirements
apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, shall be attached to the leaking equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve or connector may be removed after it has been
monitored as specified in Sec. 63.168(f)(3), Sec. 63.174(e), and Sec.
63.175(e)(7)(i)(D), and no leak has been detected during the follow-up monitoring.
(3) The identification on equipment, except on a valve or connector, may be
removed after it has been repaired.
(d) When each leak is detected as specified in Secs. 63.163 and 63.164; Secs.
63.168 and 63.169; and Secs. 63.172 through 63.174, the following information shall
be recorded and kept for 2 years:
(1) The instrument and operator identification numbers and the equipment
identification number.
(2) The date the leak was detected and the dates of each attempt to repair the
leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak.
(4) Maximum instrument reading measured by the method specified in Sec.
63.180(b) after it is successfully repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.
(5) ''Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak. If delay of repair was caused
by depletion of stocked parts, there must be documentation that the spare parts
were sufficiently stocked before depletion and the reason for depletion.
(6) The signature of the owner or operator (or designate) whose decision it was
that repair could not be effected without a process unit shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdowns that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(e) The following information shall be recorded for each process unit subject
to the requirements of Secs. 63.163 through 63.174:
(1) A schedule of monitoring for valves and for connectors.
(2) The number of leaking pumps, the total number of pumps, and the percent {pg
62781} leaking pumps during each monitoring period.
(3) The number of leaking valves, the total number of valves, all net credits
for removed valves (only if credits are taken), the number of nonrepairable valves,
and the percent leaking valves during each monitoring period.
(4) The number of leaking connectors, the total number of monitored connectors,
all net credits for removed connectors (only if credits are taken), the number of
nonrepairable connectors, and the percent leaking connectors during each monitoring
period. The number of leaking screwed connectors, the total number of monitored
screwed connectors, and the percent leaking screwed connectors during each
monitoring period.
(5) The dates and durations of:
(i) startups and shutdowns of a process unit, and
(ii) any unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of a process unit that is not defined as a
process unit shutdown. If the duration exceeds 24 hours, the calculations used in
determining that emissions from clearing process material from the process unit or
part of the process unit would exceed emissions from delay of repair of leaking
components until the next scheduled shutdown shall be recorded. The calculation
shall assume that the purged material is collected and destroyed or recovered in a
control device complying with Sec. 63.172.
(f) The owner or operator of a batch product process who elects to pressure
test the batch product process equipment train to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (i), and
(m) of this section. Instead, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the
following information:
(1) A list of identification numbers for each batch product process equipment
train used to produce products during the calendar year and the area of the plant
site where the equipment train is located.
(2) Records demonstrating the equipment is in use in a batch process during the
calendar year. Examples of suitable documentation are records of time in use for
individual pieces of equipment or average time in use for the process unit.
(3) Physical tagging of the equipment to identify that it is in VHAP service
and subject to the provisions of this subpart is not required. Equipment in a batch
product process subject to the provisions of this subpart may be identified on a
plant site plan, in log entries, or by other appropriate methods.
(4) The dates of each pressure test required in Sec. 63.178(b), the test
pressure, and the pressure drop observed during the test.
(5) Records of any visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid loss.
(g) When a batch product process equipment train does not pass two consecutive
pressure tests, the following information shall be recorded in a log and kept for 2
years:
(1) The date of each pressure test and the date of each leak repair attempt.
(2) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak.
(3) The reason for the delay of repair.
(4) The expected date for delivery of the replacement equipment and the actual
date of delivery of the replacement equipment.
(5) The date of successful repair.
(h) The following information pertaining to the design requirements for closed-
vent systems and control devices described in Sec. 63.172 shall be recorded:
(1) Detailed schematics, design specifications, and piping and instrumentation
diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any changes in the design specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or parameters monitored, as required in Sec.
63.172(e), to ensure that control devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was selected for the monitoring.
(4) Dates and durations when the closed-vent systems and control devices
required in Secs. 63.163 through 63.166, and Sec. 63.170 are not operated as
designed as indicated by the monitored parameters, including periods when a flare
pilot light system does not have a flame.
(5) Dates and durations during which the monitoring system or monitoring device
is inoperative.
(6) Dates and durations of startups and shutdowns of the closed-vent systems
and control devices required in Secs. 63.163 through 63.166, and Sec. 63.170.
(i) The following information pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of Sec. 63.168 (h) and (i), and all connectors subject to the
requirements of Sec. 63.174 (f), (g), and (h) shall be recorded:
(1) A list of identification numbers for valves and connectors that are
designated as unsafe to monitor, an explanation for each valve and connector
stating why the valve or connector is unsafe to monitor, and the plan for
monitoring each valve and connector.
(2) A list of identification numbers for valves that are designated as
difficult to monitor, an explanation for each valve stating why the valve is
difficult to monitor, and the planned schedule for monitoring each valve.
(3) A list of identification numbers for connectors that are designated as
unsafe to repair and an explanation for each connector stating why the connector is
unsafe to repair.
(j) The following information shall be recorded:
(1) Design criterion required in Secs. 63.163(e)(5) and 63.164(e)(2), and an
explanation of the design criterion; and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and the reasons for the changes.
(k) Information, data, and analysis used to determine that a piece of equipment
or process unit is in heavy liquid service or is not in VHAP service shall be
recorded. Such a determination shall include an analysis or demonstration that the
feed or raw materials, products, by-products, co-products, or intermediates do not
include sufficient chemicals listed in Sec. 63.183 to meet the criteria of ''in
VHAP service.'' Examples of information that could document this include, but are
not limited to, records of chemicals purchased for the process, analyses of process
stream composition, engineering calculations, or process knowledge.
(l) The date and duration of each process unit startup and shutdown shall be
recorded.
(m) Each owner or operator of an affected process unit subject to the
requirements of Secs. 63.175 and 63.176 shall maintain the following records for
the period of the quality improvement program for the affected process unit:
(1) For owners or operators who elect to use a reasonable further progress
quality improvement program, as specified in Sec. 63.175(d):
(i) All data required in Sec. 63.175(d)(2).
(ii) The percent leaking valves observed each quarter and the rolling average
percent reduction observed in each quarter.
(iii) The beginning and ending dates while meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.175(d).
(2) For owners or operators who elect to use a technology review and
improvement quality improvement program, as specified in Sec. 63.175(e):
(i) All data required in Sec. 63.175(e)(2).
(ii) The percent leaking valves observed each quarter.
(iii) Documentation of all inspections conducted under the requirements of Sec.
63.175(e)(4), and any recommendations for design or {pg 62782} specification
changes to reduce leak frequency.
(iv) The beginning and ending dates while meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.175(e).
(3) For owners or operators subject to the requirements of the pump quality
improvement program as specified in Sec. 63.176:
(i) All data required in Sec. 63.176(d)(2).
(ii) The rolling average percent leaking pumps.
(iii) Documentation of all inspections conducted under the requirements of Sec.
63.176(d)(4), and any recommendations for design or specification changes to reduce
leak frequency.
(iv) The beginning and ending dates while meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.176(d).
(4) If a leak is not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the
leak, the reason for the delay and the expected date of successful repair.
(5) Records of all analyses required in Secs. 63.175(e) and 63.176(d). The
records will include the following:
(i) A list identifying areas associated with poorer than average performance
and the associated service characteristics of the stream, the operating conditions
and maintenance practices.
(ii) The reasons for rejecting specific candidate superior emission performing
valve or pump technology from performance trials.
(iii) The list of candidate superior emission performing valve or pump
technologies, and documentation of the performance trial program items required
under Secs. 63.175(e)(6)(iii) and 63.176(d)(6)(iii).
(iv) The beginning date and duration of performance trials of each candidate
superior emission performing technology.
(6) All records documenting the quality assurance program for valves or pumps
as specified in Secs. 63.175(e)(7) and 63.176(d)(7).
(7) Records indicating that all valves or pumps replaced or modified during the
period of the quality improvement program are in compliance with the quality
assurance requirements in Sec. 63.175(e)(7) and Sec. 63.176(d)(7).
(8) Records documenting compliance with the 20 percent or greater annual
replacement rate for pumps as specified in Sec. 63.176(d)(8).
(9) Information and data to show the corporation has fewer than 100 employees,
including employees providing professional and technical contracted services.
(n) Owners and operators choosing to comply with the requirements of Sec.
63.179 shall maintain the following records:
(1) Identification of the process unit(s) and the VHAP's they handle.
(2) A schematic of the process unit, enclosure, and closed vent system.
(3) A description of the system used to create a negative pressure in the
enclosure to ensure that all emissions are routed to the control device.
(o) The provisions of 40 CFR 61.14(f) of this chapter do not apply to process
units subject to this subpart. (Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414)).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXXX)
Sec. 63.182 Reporting requirements.
(a)(1) An owner or operator of a process unit subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit a statement in writing so notifying the Administrator.
(2) In the case of an existing process unit or a new process unit that has an
initial startup date preceding the effective date, the statement is to be submitted
within 90 calendar days of the applicability dates specified in Sec. 63.160(b),
unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 40 CFR 61.11 of this chapter, along
with the information required under 40 CFR 61.10 of this chapter. If a waiver of
compliance is granted, the statement is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the
Administrator.
(3) In the case of new process units that did not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the statement shall be submitted with the application
for approval of construction or reconstruction as described in 40 CFR 61.07 of this
chapter.
(4) The statement is to contain the following information for each process
unit, except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section:
(i) Process unit identification.
(ii) Number of each equipment type (e.g., valves, pumps) excluding equipment in
vacuum service.
(iii) Method of compliance with the standard (for example, ''monthly leak
detection and repair'' or ''equipped with dual mechanical seals'').
(iv) Planned schedule for each phase of the requirements of this Subpart.
(5) The statement is to contain the following information for each process unit
subject to the requirements in Sec. 63.178(b):
(i) Batch product process equipment train identification, and
(ii) Planned schedule for pressure testing the batch product process equipment
train.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a report shall be
submitted to the Administrator semiannually starting 6 months after the initial
report required in paragraph (a) of this section, that includes the following
information, as applicable:
(1) Process unit identification, frequency of monitoring, and specific
provisions of this Subpart being implemented.
(2) For each monitoring period during the semiannual reporting period:
(i) The number of valves for which leaks were detected as described in Sec.
63.168(b), the percent leakers, and the total number of valves monitored;
(ii) The number of valves for which leaks were not repaired as required in Sec.
63.168(f), identifying the number of those that are determined nonrepairable;
(iii) The number of pumps for which leaks were detected as described in Sec.
63.163(b), the percent leakers, and the total number of pumps monitored;
(iv) The number of pumps for which leaks were not repaired as required in Sec.
63.163(c);
(v) The number of compressors for which leaks were detected as described in
Sec. 63.164(f);
(vi) The number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as required in
Sec. 63.164(g);
(vii) The number of connectors for which leaks were detected as described in
Sec. 63.174(a), the percent of connectors leaking, and the total number of
connectors monitored;
(viii) The number of screwed connectors for which leaks were detected as
described in Sec. 63.174(a), the percent of screwed connectors leaking, and the
total number of screwed connectors monitored;
(ix) The number of connectors for which leaks were not repaired as required in
Sec. 63.174(d), identifying the number of those that are determined nonrepairable;
(x) The number of screwed connectors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 63.174(d);
(xi) The number of agitators for which leaks were detected as described in Sec.
63.173(b);
(xii) The number of agitators for which leaks were not repaired as required in
Sec. 63.173(c); and
(xiii) The facts that explain any delay of repairs and, where appropriate, why
a process unit shutdown was technically infeasible.
(3) Dates and durations of process unit, control device, or monitoring device
startups or shutdowns which occurred within the semiannual reporting period.
(4) Revisions to items reported according to paragraph (a) of this section if
changes have occurred since {pg 62783} the initial report or subsequent revisions
to the initial report.
Note: Compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 61.10(c) of this chapter is
not required for revisions documented under this paragraph.
(5) The results of all performance tests to determine compliance with Secs.
63.164(i) and 63.165(a); and Sec. 63.172(f) conducted within the semiannual
reporting period.
(6) The initiation of a monthly monitoring program under Sec. 63.168(d)(1)(i),
or a quality improvement program under either Secs. 63.175 or 63.176, whichever is
applicable.
(7) Notification to the Administrator of a change in connector monitoring
alternatives as described in Sec. 63.174(c)(1).
(c) For owners or operators electing to meet the requirements of Sec.
63.178(b), a report shall be submitted to the Administrator semiannually starting 6
months after the initial report required in paragraph (a) of this section. The
semiannual report shall include the following information:
(1) Batch product process equipment train identification;
(2) The number of pressure tests conducted;
(3) The number of pressure tests where the equipment train failed the pressure
test;
(4) The facts that explain any delay of repairs; and
(5) The results of all performance tests to determine compliance with Sec.
63.172(f).
(d) An application for approval of construction or reconstruction, 40 CFR
61.05(a) and 40 CFR 61.07 of this chapter, will not be required if:
(1) The new process unit complies with the applicable standards in Sec. 63.162
or Sec. 63.178; and
(2) In the next semiannual report required by paragraph (b) of this section,
the information in paragraph (a)(4) of this section is reported.
(e) An owner or operator of a process unit required to comply with Sec.
63.168(d)(1) shall notify the Administrator within 30 calendar days of initiating
the monthly monitoring program under Sec. 63.168(d)(1)(i) or a quality improvement
program under Sec. 63.175.
(f) An owner or operator of a process unit required to comply with Sec.
63.163(d)(2) shall notify the Administrator within 30 calendar days of initiating a
quality improvement program under Sec. 63.176.
(g) If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of the
process unit, the reports may be submitted on electronic media.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number XXXXX)
Sec. 63.183 List of volatile hazardous air pollutants.
The provisions of this subpart apply to the following VHAPS:
Chemical name Acetaldehyde
CAS No. 75070
Chemical name Acetamide
CAS No. 60355
Chemical name Acetonitrile
CAS No. 75058
Chemical name Acetophenone
CAS No. 98862
Chemical name 2-Acetylaminofluorine
CAS No. 53963
Chemical name Acrolein
CAS No. 107028
Chemical name Acrylamide
CAS No. 79061
Chemical name Acrylic acid
CAS No. 79107
Chemical name Acrylonitrile
CAS No. 107131
Chemical name Allyl chloride
CAS No. 107051
Chemical name 4-Aminobiphenyl
CAS No. 92671
Chemical name Aniline
CAS No. 62533
Chemical name o-Anisidine
CAS No. 90040
Chemical name Benzene
CAS No. 71432
Chemical name Benzidine
CAS No. 92875
Chemical name Benzotrichloride
CAS No. 98077
Chemical name Benzyl chloride
CAS No. 100447
Chemical name Biphenyl
CAS No. 92524
Chemical name Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
CAS No. 117817
Chemical name Bis(chloromethyl)ether
CAS No. 542881
Chemical name Bromoform
CAS No. 75252
Chemical name 1,3-Butadiene
CAS No. 106990
Chemical name Caprolactam
CAS No. 105602
Chemical name Carbon disulfide
CAS No. 75150
Chemical name Carbon tetrachloride
CAS No. 56235
Chemical name Carbonyl sulfide
CAS No. 463581
Chemical name Catechol sup
CAS No. 120809
Chemical name Chloroacetic acid
CAS No. 79118
Chemical name 2-Chloroacetophenone
CAS No. 532274
Chemical name Chlorobenzene
CAS No. 108907
Chemical name Chloroform
CAS No. 67663
Chemical name Chloromethyl methyl ether
CAS No. 107302
Chemical name Chloroprene
CAS No. 126998
Chemical name Cresols and cresylic acids (mixed)
CAS No. 1319773
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (o-isomer)
CAS No. 95487
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (m-isomer)
CAS No. 108394
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (p-isomer)
CAS No. 106445
Chemical name Cumene
CAS No. 98828
Chemical name 2,4-D, salts and esters
CAS No. 94757
Chemical name DDE
CAS No. 3547044
Chemical name Diazomethane
CAS No. 334883
Chemical name Dibenzofurans
CAS No. 132649
Chemical name 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
CAS No. 96128
Chemical name Dibutylphthalate
CAS No. 84742
Chemical name 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p-)
CAS No. 106467
Chemical name 3,3 minutes -Dichlorobenzidine
CAS No. 91941
Chemical name Dichloroethyl ether (bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)
CAS No. 111444
Chemical name 1,3-Dichloropropene
CAS No. 542756
Chemical name Diethanolamine
CAS No. 111422
Chemical name N,N-Dimethylaniline
CAS No. 121697
Chemical name Diethyl sulfate
CAS No. 64675
Chemical name 3,3 minutes -Dimethoxybenzidine
CAS No. 119904
Chemical name Dimethyl aminoazobenzene
CAS No. 60117
Chemical name 3,3 minutes -Dimethylbenzidine
CAS No. 119937
Chemical name Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
CAS No. 79447
Chemical name Dimethylformamide
CAS No. 68122
Chemical name 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
CAS No. 57147
Chemical name Dimethyl phthalate
CAS No. 131113
Chemical name Dimethyl sulfate
CAS No. 77781
Chemical name 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts
CAS No. 534521
Chemical name 2,4-Dinitrophenol
CAS No. 51285
Chemical name 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
CAS No. 121142
Chemical name 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
CAS No. 123911
Chemical name 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
CAS No. 122667
Chemical name Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
CAS No. 106898
Chemical name 1,2-Epoxybutane
CAS No. 106887
Chemical name Ethyl acrylate
CAS No. 140885
Chemical name Ethylbenzene
CAS No. 100414
Chemical name Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)
CAS No. 51796
Chemical name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
CAS No. 75003
Chemical name Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
CAS No. 106934
Chemical name Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
CAS No. 107062
Chemical name Ethylene glycol
CAS No. 107211
Chemical name Ethylene oxide
CAS No. 75218
Chemical name Ethylene thiourea
CAS No. 96457
Chemical name Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
CAS No. 75343
Chemical name Formaldehyde
CAS No. 50000
Chemical name Glycol ethers sup a
CAS No. 0
Chemical name Hexachlorobenzene
CAS No. 118741
Chemical name Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS No. 87683
Chemical name Hexachloroethane
CAS No. 67721
Chemical name Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
CAS No. 822060
Chemical name Hexamethylphosphoramide
CAS No. 680319
Chemical name Hexane
CAS No. 110543
Chemical name Hydrazine
CAS No. 302012
Chemical name Hydroquinone
CAS No. 123319
Chemical name Isophorone
CAS No. 78591
Chemical name Maleic anhydride
CAS No. 108316
Chemical name Methanol
CAS No. 67561
Chemical name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
CAS No. 74839
Chemical name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
CAS No. 74873
Chemical name Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
CAS No. 71556
Chemical name Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
CAS No. 78933
Chemical name Methyl hydrazine
CAS No. 60344
Chemical name Methyl iodide (Iodomethane)
CAS No. 74884
Chemical name Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
CAS No. 108101
Chemical name Methyl isocyanate
CAS No. 624839
Chemical name Methyl methacrylate
CAS No. 80626
Chemical name Methyl tert butyl ether
CAS No. 1634044
Chemical name 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)
CAS No. 101144
Chemical name Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
CAS No. 75092
Chemical name Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
CAS No. 101688
Chemical name 4,4 minutes -Methylenedianiline
CAS No. 101779
Chemical name Naphthalene
CAS No. 91203
Chemical name Nitrobenzene
CAS No. 98953
Chemical name 4-Nitrobiphenyl
CAS No. 92933
Chemical name 4-Nitrophenol
CAS No. 100027
Chemical name 2-Nitropropane
CAS No. 79469
Chemical name N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
CAS No. 684935
Chemical name N-Nitrosodimethylamine
CAS No. 62759
Chemical name N-Nitrosomorpholine
CAS No. 59892
Chemical name Phenol
CAS No. 108952
Chemical name p-Phenylenediamine
CAS No. 106503
Chemical name Phosgene
CAS No. 75445
Chemical name Phthalic anhydride
CAS No. 85449
Chemical name Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
CAS No. 1336363
Chemical name 1,3-Propane sultone
CAS No. 1120714
Chemical name beta-Propiolactone
CAS No. 57578
Chemical name Propionaldehyde
CAS No. 123386
Chemical name Propoxur (Baygon)
CAS No. 114261
Chemical name Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
CAS No. 78875
Chemical name Propylene oxide
CAS No. 75569
Chemical name 1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine)
CAS No. 75558
Chemical name Quinone
CAS No. 106514
Chemical name Styrene
CAS No. 100425
Chemical name Styrene oxide
CAS No. 96093
Chemical name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
CAS No. 1746016
Chemical name 1,1,2,2-trachloroethane
CAS No. 79345
Chemical name Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
CAS No. 127184
Chemical name Toluene
CAS No. 108883
Chemical name 2,4-Toluene diamine
CAS No. 95807
Chemical name 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
CAS No. 584849
Chemical name o-Toluidine
CAS No. 95534
Chemical name 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
CAS No. 120821
Chemical name 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
CAS No. 79005
Chemical name Trichloroethylene
CAS No. 79016
Chemical name 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
CAS No. 95954
Chemical name 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
CAS No. 88062
Chemical name Triethylamine
CAS No. 121448
Chemical name Trifluralin
CAS No. 1582098
Chemical name 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
CAS No. 540841
Chemical name Vinyl acetate
CAS No. 108054
Chemical name Vinyl bromide
CAS No. 593602
Chemical name Vinyl chloride
CAS No. 75014
Chemical name Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
CAS No. 75354
Chemical name Xylenes (not otherwise specified)
CAS No. 1330207
Chemical name Xylene (o-isomer)
CAS No. 95476
Chemical name Xylene (m-isomer)
CAS No. 108383
Chemical name Xylene (p-isomer)
CAS No. 106423
Sec. 63.184 List of hazardous organic chemicals production processes.
The provisions of this Subpart apply to production processes that make the
following chemicals:
Group I:
CAS sup a Number 121733
Chemical name 1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
CAS sup a Number 67641
Chemical name Acetone
CAS sup a Number 75058
Chemical name Acetonitrile
CAS sup a Number 98862
Chemical name Acetophenone
CAS sup a Number 79061
Chemical name Acrylamide
CAS sup a Number 107131
Chemical name Acrylonitrile
CAS sup a Number 111693
Chemical name Adiponitrile
CAS sup a Number 107186
Chemical name Allyl alcohol
CAS sup a Number 123308
Chemical name Aminophenol (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 62533
Chemical name Aniline
CAS sup a Number 103333
Chemical name Azobenzene
CAS sup a Number 71432
Chemical name Benzene
CAS sup a Number 98486
Chemical name Benzenedisulfonic acid
CAS sup a Number 98113
Chemical name Benzenesulfonic acid
CAS sup a Number 92875
Chemical name Benzidine
CAS sup a Number 119619
Chemical name Benzophenone
CAS sup a Number 92524
Chemical name Biphenyl
CAS sup a Number 542881
Chemical name Bis(Chloromethyl)ether
CAS sup a Number 108861
Chemical name Bromobenzene
CAS sup a Number 110634
Chemical name Butanediol (1,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 96480
Chemical name Butyrolacetone
CAS sup a Number 56235
Chemical name Carbon tetrachloride
CAS sup a Number 532274
Chemical name Chloroacetophenone (2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95512
Chemical name Chloroaniline (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108907
Chemical name Chlorobenzene
CAS sup a Number 75456
Chemical name Chlorodifluoromethane
CAS sup a Number 67663
Chemical name Chloroform
CAS sup a Number 88733
Chemical name Chloronitrobenzene (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 100005
Chemical name Chloronitrobenzene (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 80159
Chemical name Cumene hydroperoxide
CAS sup a Number 98828
Chemical name Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
CAS sup a Number 110827
Chemical name Cyclohexane
CAS sup a Number 108930
Chemical name Cyclohexanol
CAS sup a Number 108941
Chemical name Cyclohexanone
CAS sup a Number 110838
Chemical name Cyclohexene
CAS sup a Number 27134276
Chemical name Dichloroaniline (mixed isomers)
CAS sup a Number 106467
Chemical name Dichlorobenzene (p-isomer) (PDB)
CAS sup a Number 541731
Chemical name Dichlorobenzene (m-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95501
Chemical name Dichlorobenzene (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 91941
Chemical name Dichlorobenzidine (3,3 minutes -isomer)
CAS sup a Number 107062
Chemical name Dichloroethane (1,2-isomer) (EDC)
CAS sup a Number 111444
Chemical name Dichloroethyl ether (bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)
CAS sup a Number 75718
Chemical name Dichlorodifluoromethane
CAS sup a Number 111422
Chemical name Diethanolamine
CAS sup a Number 111466
Chemical name Diethylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 112732
Chemical name Diethylene glycol dibutyl ether
CAS sup a Number 112367
Chemical name Diethylene glycol diethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 111966
Chemical name Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 124174
Chemical name Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
CAS sup a Number 112345
Chemical name Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS sup a Number 112152
Chemical name Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
CAS sup a Number 111900
Chemical name Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 111773
Chemical name Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 77781
Chemical name Dimethyl sulfate
CAS sup a Number 108010
Chemical name Dimethylaminoethanol (2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 25154545
Chemical name Dinitrobenzenes
CAS sup a Number 123911
Chemical name Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
CAS sup a Number 646060
Chemical name Dioxolane (1,3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 101815
Chemical name Diphenyl methane
CAS sup a Number 101848
Chemical name Diphenyl oxide
CAS sup a Number 25265718
Chemical name Dipropylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 121013
Chemical name Dodecylbenzene (n-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106898
Chemical name Epichlorohydrin(1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
CAS sup a Number 141435
Chemical name Ethanolamine
CAS sup a Number 100414
Chemical name Ethylbenzene
CAS sup a Number 96491
Chemical name Ethylene carbonate
CAS sup a Number 106934
Chemical name Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane) (EDB)
CAS sup a Number 107211
Chemical name Ethylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 111557
Chemical name Ethylene glycol diacetate
CAS sup a Number 629141
Chemical name Ethylene glycol diethyl ether (1,2-
diethoxyethane)
CAS sup a Number 110714
Chemical name Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 112072
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate
CAS sup a Number 111762
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS sup a Number 11159
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
CAS sup a Number 110805
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 110496
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
CAS sup a Number 109864
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 122996
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether
CAS sup a Number 2807309
Chemical name Ethylene glycol monopropyl ether
CAS sup a Number 75218
Chemical name Ethylene oxide
CAS sup a Number 50000
Chemical name Formaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 110178
Chemical name Fumaric acid
CAS sup a Number 100970
Chemical name Hexamethylenetetramine
CAS sup a Number 123319
Chemical name Hydroquinone
Chemical name Linear alkylbenzene (no CAS number assigned)
CAS sup a Number 108316
Chemical name Maleic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 123331
Chemical name Maleic hydrazide
CAS sup a Number 6915157
Chemical name Malic acid
CAS sup a Number 121471
Chemical name Metanilic acid
CAS sup a Number 63683
Chemical name Methionine
CAS sup a Number 75092
Chemical name Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
CAS sup a Number 101779
Chemical name Methylene dianiline (4,4 minutes -isomer) (MDA)
CAS sup a Number 98839
Chemical name Methylstyrene (a-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 88744
Chemical name Nitroaniline (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 100016
Chemical name Nitroaniline (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 98953
Chemical name Nitrobenzene
CAS sup a Number 111660
Chemical name Octene-1
CAS sup a Number 9002817
Chemical name Paraformaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 115775
Chemical name Pentaerythritol
CAS sup a Number 127184
Chemical name Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)
CAS sup a Number 106503
Chemical name Phenylenediamine (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 110850
Chemical name Piperazine
CAS sup a Number 57578
Chemical name Propiolactone (beta-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 79094
Chemical name Propionic acid
CAS sup a Number 57556
Chemical name Propylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 107982
Chemical name Propylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 75569
Chemical name Propylene oxide
CAS sup a Number 108463
Chemical name Resorcinol
CAS sup a Number 100425
Chemical name Styrene (Vinyl Benzene)
CAS sup a Number 110156
Chemical name Succinic acid
CAS sup a Number 110612
Chemical name Succinonitrile
CAS sup a Number 526830
Chemical name Tartaric acid
CAS sup a Number 95943
Chemical name Tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,4,5-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 112607
Chemical name Tetraethylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 109999
Chemical name Tetrahydrofuran
CAS sup a Number 108883
Chemical name Toluene
CAS sup a Number 102821
Chemical name Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 79016
Chemical name Trichloroethylene
CAS sup a Number 75694
Chemical name Trichlorofluoromethane
CAS sup a Number 76131
Chemical name Trichlorotrifluoroethane
CAS sup a Number 95954
Chemical name Trichlorophenol (2,4,5-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 102716
Chemical name Triethanolamine
CAS sup a Number 112276
Chemical name Triethylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 112492
Chemical name Triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (glycol
ether)
CAS sup a Number 112356
Chemical name Triethylene glycol monomethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 77996
Chemical name Trimethylolpropane
CAS sup a Number 75014
Chemical name Vinyl chloride (Chloro Ethylene)
CAS sup a Number 1330207
Chemical name Xylenes (not otherwise specified)
CAS sup a Number 95476
Chemical name Xylene (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106423
Chemical name Xylene (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108383
Chemical name Xylene (m-isomer)
Group II:
CAS sup a Number 75070
Chemical name Acetaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 107891
Chemical name Acetaldol
CAS sup a Number 60355
Chemical name Acetamide
CAS sup a Number 103844
Chemical name Acetanilide
CAS sup a Number 64197
Chemical name Acetic acid
CAS sup a Number 108247
Chemical name Acetic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 90040
Chemical name Anisidine (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106990
Chemical name Butadiene (1,3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 107880
Chemical name Butylene glycol (1,3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 105602
Chemical name Caprolactam
CAS sup a Number 558134
Chemical name Carbon tetrabromide
CAS sup a Number 75730
Chemical name Carbon tetrafluoride
CAS sup a Number 75876
Chemical name Chloral
CAS sup a Number 79118
Chemical name Chloroacetic acid
CAS sup a Number 106478
Chemical name Chloroaniline (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108430
Chemical name Chlorophenol (m-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106489
Chemical name Chlorophenol (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95578
Chemical name Chlorophenol (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 126998
Chemical name Chloroprene (2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene)
CAS sup a Number 75729
Chemical name Chlorotrifluoromethane
CAS sup a Number 4170300
Chemical name Crotonaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 372098
Chemical name Cyanoacetic acid
CAS sup a Number 29965977
Chemical name Cyclooctadienes
CAS sup a Number 760236
Chemical name Dichloro-1-butene (3,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 540590
Chemical name Dichloroethylene (1,2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 542756
Chemical name Dichloropropene (1,3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 64675
Chemical name Diethyl sulfate
CAS sup a Number 119937
Chemical name Dimethylbenzidine (3,3 minutes -isomer)
CAS sup a Number 68122
Chemical name Dimethylformamide (N,N-isomer) (DMF)
CAS sup a Number 57147
Chemical name Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 120616
Chemical name Dimethyl terephthalate
CAS sup a Number 140885
Chemical name Ethyl acrylate
CAS sup a Number 105395
Chemical name Ethyl chloroacetate
CAS sup a Number 151564
Chemical name Ethylenimine (Aziridine)
CAS sup a Number 107153
Chemical name Ethylenediamine
CAS sup a Number 103117
Chemical name Ethylhexyl acrylate (2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 75127
Chemical name Formamide
CAS sup a Number 64186
Chemical name Formic acid
CAS sup a Number 56815
Chemical name Glycerol
CAS sup a Number 25791962
Chemical name Glycerol tri(polyoxypropylene)ether
CAS sup a Number 56406
Chemical name Glycine
CAS sup a Number 107222
Chemical name Glyoxal
CAS sup a Number 118741
Chemical name Hexachlorobenzene
CAS sup a Number 87683
Chemical name Hexachlorobutadiene
CAS sup a Number 67721
Chemical name Hexachloroethane
CAS sup a Number 592450
Chemical name Hexadiene (1,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 107313
Chemical name Methyl formate
CAS sup a Number 98851
Chemical name Methyl phenol carbinol
CAS sup a Number 99092
Chemical name m-Nitroaniline
CAS sup a Number 79469
Chemical name Nitropropane (2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 123637
Chemical name Paraldehyde
CAS sup a Number 79210
Chemical name Peracetic acid
CAS sup a Number 108996
Chemical name Picoline (b-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 110861
Chemical name Pyridine
CAS sup a Number 126330
Chemical name Sulfolane
CAS sup a Number 100210
Chemical name Terephthalic acid
CAS sup a Number 79345
Chemical name Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 85438
Chemical name Tetrahydrophthalic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 110601
Chemical name Tetramethylenediamine
CAS sup a Number 95807
Chemical name Toluene 2,4 diamine
CAS sup a Number 584849
Chemical name Toluene 2,4 diisocyanate
CAS sup a Number 26471625
Chemical name Toluene diisocyanates (mixture)
CAS sup a Number 95534
Chemical name Toluidine (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 71556
Chemical name Trichloroethane (1,1,1-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 79005
Chemical name Trichloroethane (1,1,2-isomer) (Vinyl
trichloride)
CAS sup a Number 108054
Chemical name Vinyl acetate
CAS sup a Number 100403
Chemical name Vinylcyclohexene (4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 75354
Chemical name Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
Group III:
CAS sup a Number 102012
Chemical name Acetoacetanilide
CAS sup a Number 142041
Chemical name Aniline hydrochloride
CAS sup a Number 84651
Chemical name Anthraquinone
CAS sup a Number 100527
Chemical name Benzaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 134816
Chemical name Benzil
CAS sup a Number 76937
Chemical name Benzilic acid
CAS sup a Number 65850
Chemical name Benzoic acid
CAS sup a Number 119539
Chemical name Benzoin
CAS sup a Number 100470
Chemical name Benzonitrile
CAS sup a Number 98077
Chemical name Benzotrichloride
CAS sup a Number 98884
Chemical name Benzoyl chloride
CAS sup a Number 140114
Chemical name Benzyl acetate
CAS sup a Number 100516
Chemical name Benzyl alcohol
CAS sup a Number 120514
Chemical name Benzyl benzoate
CAS sup a Number 100447
Chemical name Benzyl chloride
CAS sup a Number 98873
Chemical name Benzyl dichloride
CAS sup a Number 80057
Chemical name Bisphenol A
CAS sup a Number 85687
Chemical name Butylbenzyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 108418
Chemical name Chlorotoluene (m-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95498
Chemical name Chlorotoluene (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106434
Chemical name Chlorotoluene (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108394
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (m-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 1319773
Chemical name Cresols and cresylic acids (mixed)
CAS sup a Number 95487
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 106445
Chemical name Cresol and cresylic acid (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108918
Chemical name Cyclohexylamine
CAS sup a Number 120832
Chemical name Dichlorophenol (2,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 91667
Chemical name Diethyaniline (N,N-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 84662
Chemical name Diethyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 26761400
Chemical name Diisodecyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 131113
Chemical name Dimethyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 121697
Chemical name Dimethylaniline-N,N
CAS sup a Number 51285
Chemical name Dinitrophenol (2,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 121142
Chemical name Dinitrotoluene (2,4-isomer) (DNT)
CAS sup a Number 97392
Chemical name Di-o-tolyguanidine
CAS sup a Number 102089
Chemical name Diphenyl thiourea
CAS sup a Number 122394
Chemical name Diphenylamine
CAS sup a Number 27193868
Chemical name Dodecylphenol
CAS sup a Number 103695
Chemical name Ethylaniline (n-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 578541
Chemical name Ethylaniline (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 121915
Chemical name Isophthalic acid
CAS sup a Number 25168063
Chemical name Isopropylphenol
CAS sup a Number 100618
Chemical name Methylaniline (n-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108872
Chemical name Methylcyclohexane
CAS sup a Number 1331222
Chemical name Methylcyclohexanone
CAS sup a Number 101688
Chemical name Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (4,4 minutes -
isomer) (MDI)
CAS sup a Number 91236
Chemical name Nitroanisole (o-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 100174
Chemical name Nitroanisole (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 100027
Chemical name Nitrophenol (4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 88755
Chemical name Nitrophenol (o-isomer) (2-Nitrophenol)
CAS sup a Number 1321126
Chemical name Nitrotoluene (all isomers)
CAS sup a Number 88722
Chemical name Nitrotoluene (2-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 99081
Chemical name Nitrotoluene (3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 99990
Chemical name Nitrotoluene (4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 27193288
Chemical name Octylphenol
CAS sup a Number 87865
Chemical name Pentachlorophenol
CAS sup a Number 156434
Chemical name Phenetidine (p-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108952
Chemical name Phenol
CAS sup a Number 77098
Chemical name Phenolphthalein
CAS sup a Number 1333397
Chemical name Phenolsulfonic acids (all isomers)
CAS sup a Number 91407
Chemical name Phenyl anthranilic acid
CAS sup a Number 108736
Chemical name Phloroglucinol
CAS sup a Number 88993
Chemical name Phthalic acid
CAS sup a Number 85449
Chemical name Phthalic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 85416
Chemical name Phthalimide
CAS sup a Number 91156
Chemical name Phthalonitrile
CAS sup a Number 98511
Chemical name p-tert-Butyl toluene
CAS sup a Number 106514
Chemical name Quinone
CAS sup a Number 69727
Chemical name Salicylic acid
CAS sup a Number 139026
Chemical name Sodium phenate
CAS sup a Number 588590
Chemical name Stilbene
CAS sup a Number 121573
Chemical name Sulfanilic acid
CAS sup a Number 632791
Chemical name Tetrabromophthalic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 117088
Chemical name Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride
CAS sup a Number 104154
Chemical name Toluenesulfonic acids (all isomers)
CAS sup a Number 98599
Chemical name Toluenesulfonyl chloride
CAS sup a Number 634935
Chemical name Trichloroaniline (2,4,6-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 25013154
Chemical name Vinyl toluene
CAS sup a Number 25321419
Chemical name Xylene sulfonic acid
CAS sup a Number 1300738
Chemical name Xylidine
Group IV:
CAS sup a Number 107028
Chemical name Acrolein
CAS sup a Number 79107
Chemical name Acrylic acid
CAS sup a Number 107051
Chemical name Allyl chloride
CAS sup a Number 109751
Chemical name Allyl cyanide
CAS sup a Number 27497514
Chemical name Bromonaphthalene
CAS sup a Number 75150
Chemical name Carbon disulfide
CAS sup a Number 25586430
Chemical name Chloronaphthalene
CAS sup a Number 91178
Chemical name Decahydronaphthalene
CAS sup a Number 131179
Chemical name Diallyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 109897
Chemical name Diethylamine
CAS sup a Number 115106
Chemical name Dimethyl ether
CAS sup a Number 124403
Chemical name Dimethylamine
CAS sup a Number 75003
Chemical name Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
CAS sup a Number 111308
Chemical name Glutaraldehyde
CAS sup a Number 106694
Chemical name Hexanetriol (1,2,6-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 78591
Chemical name Isophorone
CAS sup a Number 67561
Chemical name Methanol
CAS sup a Number 79209
Chemical name Methyl acetate
CAS sup a Number 74839
Chemical name Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
CAS sup a Number 74873
Chemical name Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
CAS sup a Number 60344
Chemical name Methyl hydrazine
CAS sup a Number 108112
Chemical name Methyl isobutyl carbinol
CAS sup a Number 108101
Chemical name Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
CAS sup a Number 624839
Chemical name Methyl isocyanate
CAS sup a Number 74931
Chemical name Methyl mercaptan
CAS sup a Number 80626
Chemical name Methyl methacrylate
CAS sup a Number 74895
Chemical name Methylamine
CAS sup a Number 91203
Chemical name Naphthalene
CAS sup a Number 85472
Chemical name Naphthalene sulfonic acid (a-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 120183
Chemical name Naphthalene sulfonic acid (b-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 90153
Chemical name Naphthol (a-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 135193
Chemical name Naphthol (b-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 86577
Chemical name Nitronaphthalene (1-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 594423
Chemical name Perchloromethyl mercaptan
CAS sup a Number 75445
Chemical name Phosgene
CAS sup a Number 123386
Chemical name Propionaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 78875
Chemical name Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
CAS sup a Number 124414
Chemical name Sodium methoxide
CAS sup a Number 78002
Chemical name Tetraethyl lead
CAS sup a Number 119642
Chemical name Tetrahydronapthalene (Tetralin)
CAS sup a Number 121448
Chemical name Triethylamine
CAS sup a Number 75503
Chemical name Trimethylamine
CAS sup a Number 933482
Chemical name Trimethylcyclohexanol
CAS sup a Number 2408379
Chemical name Trimethylcyclohexanone
Group V:
CAS sup a Number 83329
Chemical name Acenaphthene
CAS sup a Number 105577
Chemical name Acetal
CAS sup a Number 75865
Chemical name Acetone cyanohydrin
CAS sup a Number 72480
Chemical name Alizarin
CAS sup a Number 008
Chemical name Alkyl anthraquinones
Chemical name Alkyl naphthalenes (no CAS number assigned)
CAS sup a Number 0010
Chemical name Aminophenol sulfonic acid
CAS sup a Number 120127
Chemical name Anthracene
CAS sup a Number 75252
Chemical name Bromoform
CAS sup a Number 141322
Chemical name Butyl acrylate (n-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 63252
Chemical name Carbaryl
CAS sup a Number 86748
Chemical name Carbazole
CAS sup a Number 25497294
Chemical name Chlorodifluoroethane
CAS sup a Number 218019
Chemical name Chrysene
CAS sup a Number 0012
Chemical name Diacetoxy-2-Butene (1,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 137097
Chemical name Diaminophenol hydrochloride
CAS sup a Number 74953
Chemical name Dibromomethane
CAS sup a Number 117839
Chemical name Dibutoxyethyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 579668
Chemical name Diethylaniline (2,6-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 27554263
Chemical name Diisooctyl phthalate
CAS sup a Number 28675174
Chemical name Dodecylaniline
CAS sup a Number 123013
Chemical name Dodecyl benzene (branched)
CAS sup a Number 0013
Chemical name Dodecyl phenol (branched)
CAS sup a Number 75047
Chemical name Ethylamine
CAS sup a Number 9004573
Chemical name Ethylcellulose
CAS sup a Number 105566
Chemical name Ethylcyanoacetate
CAS sup a Number 60004
Chemical name Ethylenediamene tetracetic acid
CAS sup a Number 367475
Chemical name Glyceraldehyde
CAS sup a Number 0016
Chemical name Hydroxyadipaldehyde
CAS sup a Number 111422
Chemical name Iminodiethanol (2,2-)
CAS sup a Number 106638
Chemical name Isobutyl acrylate
CAS sup a Number 115117
Chemical name Isobutylene
CAS sup a Number 0017
Chemical name Isophorone nitrile
CAS sup a Number 0018
Chemical name Lead phthalate
CAS sup a Number 141797
Chemical name Mesityl oxide
CAS sup a Number 79414
Chemical name Methacrylic acid
CAS sup a Number 96333
Chemical name Methyl acrylate
CAS sup a Number 78933
Chemical name Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
CAS sup a Number 1634044
Chemical name Methyl tert-butyl ether
CAS sup a Number 25639423
Chemical name Methylcyclohexanol
CAS sup a Number 79696
Chemical name Methylionones (a-)
CAS sup a Number 77758
Chemical name Methylpentynol
CAS sup a Number 567180
Chemical name Naphtholsulfonic acid (1-)
CAS sup a Number 84866
Chemical name Naphthylamine sulfonic acid (1,4-)
CAS sup a Number 81163
Chemical name Naphthylamine sulfonic acid (2,1-)
CAS sup a Number 134327
Chemical name Naphthylamine (1-)
CAS sup a Number 91598
Chemical name Naphthylamine (2-)
CAS sup a Number 25168041
Chemical name Nitroxylene
CAS sup a Number 1081772
Chemical name Nonylbenzene (branched)
CAS sup a Number 25154523
Chemical name Nonylphenol
CAS sup a Number 85018
Chemical name Phenanthrene
CAS sup a Number 25322683
Chemical name Polyethylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 25322694
Chemical name Polypropylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 108327
Chemical name Propylene carbonate
CAS sup a Number 129000
Chemical name Pyrene
CAS sup a Number 88120
Chemical name n-Vinyl-2-pyrrolidine
CAS sup a Number 27138574
Chemical name Resorcylic acid (Dihydroxybenzoic acid)
CAS sup a Number 112572
Chemical name Tetraethylenepentamine
CAS sup a Number 75741
Chemical name Tetramethyl lead
CAS sup a Number 110189
Chemical name Tetramethylethylenediamine
CAS sup a Number 102089
Chemical name Thiocarbanilide
Chemical name Triethylene glycol monethly ether
CAS sup a Number 007
Chemical name Trimethylcyclohexylamine
CAS sup a Number 540841
Chemical name Trimethylpentane (2,2,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 24800440
Chemical name Tripropylene glycol
CAS sup a Number 140896
Chemical name Xanthates
CAS sup a Number 1300716
Chemical name Xylenol
CAS sup a Number 526750
Chemical name Xylenol (2,3-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 105679
Chemical name Xylenol (2,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95874
Chemical name Xylenol (2,5-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 576261
Chemical name Xylenol (2,6-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 95658
Chemical name Xylenol (3,4-isomer)
CAS sup a Number 108689
Chemical name Xylenol (3,5-isomer)
sup a CAS Chemical Abstract Service.
Sec. 63.185 Reserved
Sec. 63.186 Reserved
Sec. 63.187 Reserved
Sec. 63.188 Reserved
Sec. 63.189 Reserved
SUBPART I- Reserved
SUBPART J- Reserved
SUBPART K- Reserved
3. It is proposed that appendix A of part 63 be amended by adding Methods 304
and 305 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63-Test Methods
Method 304-Method for the Determination of Biodegradation Rates of Organic
Compounds
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of
biodegradation rates of organic compounds in an activated sludge process. The test
method is designed to evaluate the ability of an aerobic biological reaction system
to degrade or destroy specific components in waste streams. The method may also be
used to determine the effects of changes in wastewater composition on operation.
The biodegradation rates determined by utilizing this method are not representative
of a full-scale system. Full-scale systems embody biodegradation and air emissions
in competing reactions. This method measures biodegradation in absence of air
emissions. The rates measured by this method shall be used in conjunction with a
mathematical model (cited in the applicable regulation) in order to calculate
fraction emitted to the air versus fraction biodegraded.
1.2 Principle. A self-contained benchtop bioreactor system is assembled in the
laboratory. A sample of mixed liquor is added and the waste stream is then fed
continuously. The bioreactor is operated under conditions identical to the target
full-scale activated sludge process, except that air emissions are not a factor.
Bioreactor temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, average residence time in
the reactor, waste composition, biomass concentration, and biomass composition of
the full-scale process are the parameters which are duplicated in the laboratory
system. If antifoaming agents are used in the full-scale system, they shall also be
used in the bioreactor. The feed flowing into the reactor and the effluent exiting
the reactor are analyzed to determine the biodegradation rates of the target
compounds. The choice of analytical methodology for measuring the compounds of
interest at the inlet and outlet to the reactor are left to the discretion of the
source, except where validated methods are available.
2. Apparatus
Figure 1 illustrates the typical laboratory apparatus used to measure
biodegradation rates. Throughout the testing period, insure that the bioreactor
system is self-contained and isolated from the atmosphere by leak-checking
fittings, tubing, etc.
2.1 Laboratory Apparatus. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
2.1.1 Reactor. The biological reaction is conducted in a conical 6-L glass
biological oxidation reactor. The reactor is sealed and equipped with internal
probes to control and monitor dissolved oxygen and internal temperature. A pair of
matched flanges (blind and slip-on) are machined from 3/4 - in. plexiglass. Four
bolts that pass through bolt holes in the blind flange are permanently tapped into
the slip-on flange. Wing nuts are used to compress a Viton O-ring. The blind flange
is tapped for aerators, gas flow ports, and instrumentation.
2.1.2 Aeration Gas. Aeration gas is added to the reactor through three
diffusers, which are glass tubes (4 mm O.D.) that extend to the bottom fifth of the
reactor depth. Aeration gas is provided by pure oxygen from a pressurized oxygen
cylinder and by recycling the reactor headspace gas. Install a blower to blow the
aeration gas into the reactor diffusers (Diaphragm Type, 15 SCFH capacity). Measure
the aeration gas flow rate with a rotameter (0-15 SCFH). The aeration gas will rise
through the reactor, dissolving oxygen into the mixture in the process. The
aeration gas must provide sufficient agitation to keep the solids in suspension.
Provide an exit for the aeration gas from the top flange of the reactor through a
water-cooled Allihn-type condenser. The condenser is installed through a gas-tight
fitting in the reactor closure. Design the system so that at least 10 percent of
the gas flows through an alkaline scrubber containing 175 mL of 45 percent by
weight solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and 5 drops of 0.2 percent alizarin
yellow dye. Route the balance of the gas through an adjustable scrubber bypass.
Route all of the gas through a 1-L knock-out flask to remove entrained moisture and
then to the intake of the blower. The blower recirculates the gas to the reactor.
2.1.3 Wastewater Feed. Supply the wastewater feed to the reactor in a 20-L
collapsible low-density polyethylene container equipped with a spigot cap
(collapsible containers of other material may be required due to the permeability
of some volatile compounds through polyethylene). Obtain the wastewater feed by
sampling the wastewater feed in the target process. A representative sample of
wastewater shall be obtained from the piping leading to the aeration tank. This
sample may be obtained from existing sampling valves at the discharge of the
wastewater feed pump, or collected from a pipe discharging to the aeration tank, or
by pumping from a well-mixed equalization tank upstream from the aeration tank.
Alternatively, wastewater can be pumped continuously to the laboratory apparatus
from a bleed stream taken from the equalization tank of the full- scale treatment
system.
2.1.3.1 Refrigeration System. Keep the wastewater feed cool by ice or by
refrigeration to 4 sup oC. If using a bleed stream from the process, refrigeration
is not required if the residence time in the bleed stream is less than five
minutes.
2.1.3.2 Wastewater Feed Pump. The wastewater is pumped from the refrigerated
container using a variable-speed peristaltic pump drive equipped with a peristaltic
pump head. Add the feed solution to the reactor through a fitting on the top
flange. Determine the rate of feed addition to provide a retention time in the
bioreactor that is numerically equivalent to the retention time in the fullscale
system. The wastewater shall be fed at a rate sufficient to achieve 90 to 100
percent of the full-scale system residence time.
2.1.3.3 Treated Wastewater Feed. The reactor effluent exits at the bottom of
the reactor through a tube and proceeds to the clarifier.
2.1.4 Clarifier. The effluent flows to a clarifier constructed from a 2-liter
pear-shaped separatory funnel, modified by removing the stopcock and adding a 25-mm
OD glass tube at the bottom. Reactor effluent enters the clarifier through a 1/2 -
in. tube inserted to a depth of 3 in. through a stopper at the top of the
clarifier. System effluent flows from a 1/4 -in. tube inserted through the stopper
at the top of the clarifier to a drain (or sample bottle when sampling). The
underflow from the clarifier leaves from the glass tube at the bottom of the
clarifier through an O-ring fitting and a reducer. Flexible tubing connects this
fitting to the sludge recycle pump. This pump is coupled to a variable speed pump
drive. The discharge from this pump is returned through a tube inserted in a port
on the side of the reactor. An additional port is provided near the bottom of the
reactor for sampling the reactor contents. Figure 2 illustrates the design of the
external clarifier. The mixed liquor from the reactor flows into the center of the
clarifier. The clarified system effluent separates from the biomass and flows
through an exit near the top of the clarifier. There shall be no headspace in the
clarifier. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
2.1.5 Temperature Control Apparatus. The temperature of the contents of the
laboratory reactor system shall be maintained at the temperature of the full-scale
system, plus or minus 2 degrees C, throughout the testing period.
2.1.5.1 Temperature Monitoring Device. The temperature of the reactor contents
shall be monitored with a resistance type temperature probe or a thermocouple and
shall be connected to the temperature control device. The temperature probe shall
be connected to a temperature readout device (0.1 degrees C resolution, 10 A
output).
2.1.5.2 Reactor Heater. An immersion heater (6-in. or greater heated length,
320 W) is connected to the temperature control device and inserted through the top
flange of the reactor. Other types of temperature control devices may be used upon
meeting the specifications of section 2.1.5.
2.1.6 Oxygen Control System. Dissolved oxygen concentration shall be maintained
at the levels present in the full-scale system, plus or minus 0.5 mg/L.
2.1.6.1 Dissolved Oxygen Monitor. Dissolved oxygen is monitored with a
polarographic probe (gas permeable membrane) connected to a dissolved oxygen meter
(0 to 15 mg/L, 0 to 50 degrees C).
2.1.6.2 Reactor Pressure Monitor. The reactor pressure is monitored through a
port in the top flange of the reactor. This is connected to a gauge control with a
span of 5-in. water vacuum to 5-in. water pressure. A relay is activated when the
vacuum exceeds an adjustable setpoint which opens a solenoid valve (normally
closed) admitting oxygen to the system. The vacuum setpoint controlling oxygen
addition to the system shall be set at approximately 2.5 plus or minus 0.5 cm water
and maintained at this setting except during brief periods when the dissolved
oxygen concentration is adjusted.
2.2 Analysis. If the identity of the compounds of interest in the wastewater is
not known to the source, a representative sample of the wastewater shall be
analyzed in order to identify all of the compounds of interest present. A gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry screening method is recommended.
2.2.1 After identifying the compounds of interest in the wastewater, an
analytical technique capable of measuring all of those compounds shall be developed
(more than one analytical technique may be required, depending on the
characteristics of the wastewater). Test Method 18, found in appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60, may be used as a guideline in developing the analytical technique. Purge
and trap techniques may be used for analysis providing the target components are
sufficiently volatile as to make this technique appropriate. The limit of
quantitation for each compound shall be determined. 1 If the effluent concentration
of any target compound is below the limit of quantitation determined for that
compound, use the limit of quantitation concentration as the outlet concentration
for that compound in the biodegradation calculations.
2.2.2 Calibration Standards. Calibration standards shall be prepared from pure
certified standards in an aqueous medium. Three concentrations of calibration
standards for each target component (or for a mixture of components) shall be
prepared and analyzed in triplicate daily throughout the analyses of the test
samples. At each concentration level, a single calibration shall be within 5
percent of the average of the three calibration results. The low and medium
calibration standards shall bracket the expected concentration of the effluent
(treated) wastewater. The medium and high standards shall bracket the expected
influent concentration.
2.3 Audit Analysis. A performance audit sample shall be analyzed during every
{pg 62789} compliance test, if available. Audit availability information may be
obtained by contacting the Emission Measurement Technical Information Center at
(919) 541-2237. The same analytical equipment and analyst used in conducting the
compliance test shall be used to conduct the audit analysis.
3. Reagents
3.1 Wastewater. A representative sample of wastewater shall be obtained at the
inlet to the full-scale treatment plant if there is an existing full-scale
treatment plant (See section 2.1.3). If there is no existing full-scale treatment
plant, obtain the wastewater sample as close to the point of generation as
possible. The sample shall be collected by pumping the wastewater into the 20- L
collapsible container. The loss of volatiles from the wastewater shall be minimized
by collapsing the container before filling, by minimizing the time of filling, and
by avoiding a headspace in the container after filling. If the wastewater requires
the addition of nutrients to support the biomass growth and maintain biomass
characteristics, those nutrients are added and mixed with the container contents
after the container is filled.
3.2 Biomass. The biomass or activated sludge used for rate constant
determination in the bench-scale process shall be obtained from the existing full-
scale process or from a representative biomass culture that has been developed for
a future full-scale process. This biomass is preferentially obtained from a
thickened acclimated mixed liquor sample. The sample shall be collected either by
bailing from the mixed liquor in the aeration tank with a weighted container, or by
collecting aeration tank effluent at the effluent overflow weir. The sample shall
be transported to the laboratory within 12 hours of collection.
4. Procedure. Safety Note: If explosive gases are produced as a byproduct of
biodegradation, closely monitor headspace concentration of these gases to insure
laboratory safety. Placement of bioreactor system inside a laboratory hood is
recommended regardless of byproducts produced.
4.1 Reactor Operation. Mixed liquor shall be charged to the reactor, leaving 5
cm (2 inch) headspace over the liquid surface to minimize entrainment of mixed
liquor in the circulating gas. The reactor headplate shall be fastened to the
reactor over the liquid surface.
4.1.1 Wastewater Storage. The wastewater sample shall be collected in the 20-L
collapsible container. The container shall be stored at 4 degrees C throughout the
testing period. The container is connected to the reactor feed pump.
4.1.2 Wastewater Flow Rate. The hydraulic residence time of the aeration tank
is calculated as the ratio of the volume of the tank (L) to the flow rate (L/min).
At the beginning of a test the container shall be connected to the feed pump and
solution pumped to the reactor at the required flow rate to achieve the calculated
hydraulic residence time of the aeration tank.
Q sub test
Q sub fs / 6L
V sub fs
(Eq. 4-1)
where:
Q sub test wastewater flow rate (L/min),
Q sub fs average flow rate of full-scale process (L/min), and
V sub fs volume of full-scale aeration tank (L).
The flow rate in the test apparatus is the same as the flow rate in the full-
scale process multiplied by the ratio of bioreactor volume (6 L) to the volume of
the full-scale aeration tank. The hydraulic residence time shall be maintained at
90 to 100 percent of the residence time maintained in the full-scale unit. A
nominal flow rate is set on the pump based on a pump calibration. Changes in the
elasticity of the tubing in the pump head and the accumulation of material in the
tubing affect this calibration. The nominal pumping rate shall be changed as
necessary based on volumetric flow measurements. The reactor effluent shall be
discharged to a wastewater storage, treatment, or disposal facility, except during
sampling or flow measurement periods.
4.1.3 Sludge Recycle Rate. The sludge recycle rate shall be set at a rate
sufficient to prevent accumulation in the bottom of the clarifier. The air
circulation rate shall be set sufficient to maintain the biomass in suspension.
4.1.4 Bioreactor Operation and Maintenance. Temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, flow rate, and air circulation rate shall be measured and recorded
three times throughout each day of testing. At the beginning of each test period,
the reactor contents shall be sampled for suspended solids analysis. This sample
shall be taken by loosening a clamp on a length of tubing attached to the lower
side port. The suspended solids determination shall be made gravimetrically by the
Gooch crucible/glass fiber filter method for total suspended solids, in accordance
with Standard Methods sup 3 or equivalent. When necessary, sludge shall be wasted
from the lower side port of the reactor, and the volume that is wasted shall be
replaced with an equal volume of the reactor effluent. Thickened activated sludge
mixed liquor shall be added as necessary to the reactor to increase the suspended
solids concentration to the desired level. This mixed liquor shall be pumped to the
reactor through the upper side port (Item 24 in Figure 1). The membrane on the
dissolved oxygen probe shall be changed before starting the test. The oxygen probe
shall be calibrated immediately before the start of the test and each time the
membrane is changed. The scrubber solution shall be replaced each weekday with 175
mL 45 percent W/W KOH solution to which five drops of 0.2 percent alizarin yellow
indicator in water have been added.
4.1.5 Inspection and Correction Procedures. If the feed line tubing becomes
clogged, replace with new tubing. If the flow rate is not within 5 percent of
target flow any time the flow rate is measured, reset pump and measure flow rate
again until target flow rate is achieved.
4.2 Test Sampling. Two and one half hydraulic residence times after the system
has reached the targeted specifications shall be permitted to elapse before the
first sample is taken. Effluent samples of the clarifier discharge (Item 20 in
Figure 1) and the influent wastewater feed are collected in 40-mL septum vials to
which two drops of 1:10 hydrochloric acid (HCl) in water have been added. The
clarifier discharge samples shall be taken directly from the drain line. These
samples will be composed of the entire flow from the system for a period of several
minutes. Feed samples shall be taken from the feed pump suction line after
temporarily stopping the reactor feed, removing a connector, and squeezing the
collapsible feed container. Both influent and effluent samples shall be analyzed
within 8 hours of collection.
4.2.1 Frequency of Sampling. During the test, the wastewater feed and the
clarifier effluent shall be sampled at least six times. The sampling intervals
shall be separated by at least 8 hours. During any individual sampling interval,
the wastewater feed sample shall be taken simultaneously with or immediately after
the effluent sample. Calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) of both the
influent and effluent sample concentrations. Both RSD values shall be greater than
15 percent. If an RSD value is greater than 15 percent, continue sampling influent
and effluent sets of samples until the RSD values are within specifications.
4.2.2 Sampling After Exposure of System to Atmosphere. If, after starting
sampling procedures, the bioreactor system is exposed to the atmosphere (due to
leaks, maintenance, etc.), at least one hydraulic residence time shall be allowed
to elapse before resuming sampling.
5. Operational Checks and Calibration
5.1 Dissolved Oxygen. Fluctuation in dissolved oxygen concentration may occur
for numerous reasons, including undetected gas leaks, increases and decreases in
mixed liquor suspended solids resulting from cell growth and solids loss in the
effluent stream, changes in diffuser performance, cycling of effluent flow rate,
and overcorrection due to faulty or sluggish dissolved oxygen probe response. The
dissolved oxygen concentration in the reactor shall be controlled by changing the
proportion of oxygen in the circulating aeration gas. Should the dissolved oxygen
concentration drift below the designated experimental condition, a small amount of
aeration gas shall be bled from the system on the pressure side (i.e., immediately
upstream of one of the diffusers). This will create a vacuum in the system,
triggering the pressure sensitive relay to open the solenoid valve and admit oxygen
to the system. Should the dissolved oxygen concentration drift above the designated
experimental condition, the oxygen input to the system shall be stopped until the
dissolved oxygen concentration approaches the correct level.
5.2 Sludge Wasting. The suspended solids concentration shall be determined
(Section 4.1.4) at the beginning of a test, and once per day thereafter during the
test. If the test is completed within a two day period, the suspended solids
concentration shall be determined after the final sample set is taken. If the
suspended solids concentration exceeds the specified concentration, a fraction of
the sludge shall be removed from the reactor. The required volume of mixed liquor
to remove is determined as follows:
V sub w
V sub r / S sub m - S sub s
S sub m
(Eq. 5-1)
where: V sub w is the wasted volume (Liters),
V sub r is the volume of the reactor (6 Liters),
S sub m is the measured solids (g/L), and
S sub s is the specified solids (g/L).
Mixed liquor shall be removed from the reactor by loosening a clamp on the
mixed liquor sampling tube and allowing the required volume to drain to a graduated
flask. The tube shall be clamped when the correct volume has been wasted. The
volume of the liquid wasted shall be replaced by pouring the same volume of
effluent back into the bioreactor. The waste sludge shall be disposed of properly.
5.3 Sludge Makeup. In the event that the suspended solids concentration is
lower than the specifications, makeup sludge shall be added back into the
bioreactor. The amount of sludge added shall be determined by the following
equation:
V sub w
V sub r / S sub s -S sub m
S sub w
(Eq. 5-2)
where: V sub w is the volume of sludge to add (Liters),
V sub r is the volume of the reactor (6 Liters),
S sub w is the solids in the makeup sludge (g/L),
S sub m is the measured solids (g/L), and
S sub s is the specified solids (g/L).
5.4 Wastewater Pump Calibration. The wastewater flow rate shall be determined
by collecting the system effluent for a time period of at least one hour, and
measuring the volume with a graduated cylinder. Record the collection time period
and volume collected. Determine flow rate. The pump speed shall be adjusted to
deliver the specified flow rate.
6. Calculations
6.1 Nomenclature. The following symbols are used in the calculations.
C sub i Average inlet feed concentration for a compound of interest, as analyzed
(mg/L)
C sub o Average outlet (effluent) concentration for a compound of interest, as
analyzed (mg/L)
X Biomass concentration, mixed liquor suspended solids (g/L)
t Hydraulic residence time in the reactor (hours)
V Volume of the bioreactor (6 L)
Q Flow rate of wastewater into the reactor, average (L/hour)
6.2 Residence Time. The hydraulic residence time of the reactor is equal to the
ratio of the volume of the reactor (L) to the flow rate (L/h)
t
V / Q
(Eq. 6-1)
6.3 Rate of Biodegradation. The rate of biodegradation for each component shall
be calculated with the following equation: {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT}
(Eq. 6-2)
6.4 First-Order Biorate Constant. The first-order biorate constant (K1) for
each component shall be calculated with the following equation: {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(Eq. 6-3)
6.5 Determination of Percent Air Emissions and Percent Biodegraded. The first-
order biorate constant shall be used in a mathematical model cited in the
applicable regulation (e.g., Water7 4 , Chemdat7 5 ), which will calculate the fate
of the compounds of interest present in the wastewater. Input the parameters of the
full-scale system into the model program.
6.6 Relative Standard Deviation (RSD). Determine the standard deviation of both
the influent and effluent sample concentrations (S) using the following equation:
{SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
(Eq. 6-4)
7. Bibliography
1. ''Guidelines for data acquisition and data quality evaluation in
Environmental Chemistry,'' Daniel MacDoughal, Analytical Chemistry, Volume 52, p.
2242, 1980.
2. Test Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
3. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition,
Method 209C, Total Suspended Solids Dried at 103-105 degrees C, APHA, 1985.
4. Water7, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)-
Air Emission Models, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA- 450/3-87-026,
Review Draft, November 1989.
5. Chemdat7, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)-
Air Emission Models, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/3- 87-026,
Review Draft, November 1989.
Method 305-Method for the Measurement of Individual Volatile Organics in
Wastewater
1.0 Applicability and Principle
This procedure may be used to determine the emission potential of individual
volatile organics (VOs) in wastewater. The purge conditions established by Method
25D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) are used to remove VOs from a 10-g sample of
wastewater suspended in a 50/50 solution of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and water.
The purged VOs are collected and analyzed using an appropriate technique. The
recovery efficiency of the collection and analysis technique must be determined for
all of the target pollutants and a correction factor, if necessary, must be
determined and applied. This Method describes a gas chromatography technique, but
any analytical technique may be used as long as the source can demonstrate adequate
recovery of the target pollutants as described in the Method.
2.0 Apparatus and Materials
2.1 Method 25D Purge Apparatus.
2.1.1 Purge Chamber. The purge chamber must accommodate the 10-g sample of
wastewater suspended in a matrix of 50 mL of PEG and 50 mL of deionized,
hydrocarbon-free water. Three fittings are used on the glass chamber top. Two sup 6
cumber 7 Ace-threads are used for the purge gas inlet and outlet connections. A sup
6 cumber 50 Ace-thread is used to connect the top of the chamber to the base (see
Figure 1). The base of the chamber has a side-arm equipped with a sup 6 cumber 22
Sovirel fitting to allow for easy sample introductions into the chamber. The
dimensions of the chamber are shown in Figure 1.
2.1.2 Flow Distribution Device (FDD). The FDD enhances the gas-to-liquid
contact for improved purging efficiency. The FDD is a 6-mm-OD by 30-cm long glass
tube equipped with four arm bubblers as shown in Figure 1. Each arm has an opening
of 1 mm in diameter.
2.1.3 Coalescing Filter. The coalescing filter serves to discourage aerosol
formation of sample gas once it leaves the purge chamber. The glass filter has a
fritted disc mounted 5 cm from the bottom. Two sup 6 cumber 7 Ace-threads are used
for the inlet and outlet connections. The dimensions of the chamber are shown in
Figure 2.
2.1.4 Oven. A gravity-convection or forced-convection airflow oven capable of
maintaining the purge chamber and coalescing filter at 75 plus or minus 2 degrees
C.
2.1.5 Toggle Valve. An on/off valve constructed from brass or stainless steel
rated to 100 psig. This valve is placed in line between the purge nitrogen source
and the flow controller.
2.1.6 Flow Controller. High-quality stainless steel flow controller capable of
restricting a flow of nitrogen to 6 plus or minus 0.06 L/min at 40 psig. {SEE
ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
2.1.7 Polyethylene Glycol Cleaning System.
2.1.7.1 Round-Bottom Flask. One liter, three-neck round-bottom flask for
cleaning PEG. Standard taper 24/40 joints are mounted on each neck.
2.1.7.2 Heating Mantle. Capable of heating contents of the 1-L flask to 120
degrees C.
2.1.7.3 Nitrogen Bubbler. Teflon or glass tube, 0.25 in. OD.
2.1.7.4 Thermometer. Partial immersion glass thermometer.
2.1.7.5 Hose Adapter. Glass with 24/40 standard tapered joint.
2.1.8 Reagents.
2.1.8.1 Polyethylene Glycol. Ninety-eight percent pure organic polymer with an
average molecular weight of 400. Volatile organics are removed from the PEG prior
to use by heating to 120 degrees C and purging with pure nitrogen at 1 L/min for 2
hours. The PEG is stored under a nitrogen purge maintained at 1 L/min until used. A
typical apparatus used to clean the PEG is shown in Figure 3. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S)
IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
2.1.8.2 Water. Organic-free deionized water is required.
2.1.8.3 Nitrogen. High-purity nitrogen (less than 0.5 ppm total hydrocarbons)
is used to remove test compounds from the purge matrix. The source of nitrogen
shall be regulated continuously to 40 psig before the on/off toggle valve.
2.2 Volatile Organic Recovery System.
2.2.1 Injection Port. Stainless steel 1/4 in. OD compression fitting tee with a
6-mm septum fixed on the top port. The injection port is the point of entry for the
internal standard solution.
2.2.2 Knockout Trap. A 25-mL capacity glass reservoir body with a modified half-
stem impinger (approximately 6 cm in length). The empty impinger is placed in an
ice water bath between the internal standard injection port and the sorbent trap.
The knockout trap is recommended due to the high water content of the purge gas.
2.2.3 Insulated Ice Bath. A 350-mL dewar or other type of insulated bath is
used to maintain ice water around the knockout trap, if one is used.
2.2.4 Sorbent Cartridges. Commercially available glass or stainless steel
cartridge packed with one or more appropriate sorbents. The cartridge shall have a
minimum outside diameter of 8 mm. The amount of adsorbent packed in the cartridge
depends on the breakthrough volume of the test compounds but is limited by back
pressure caused by the packing (not to exceed 7 psig).
2.2.5 Volumetric Glassware. Type A glass 10-mL volumetric flasks for measuring
a final volume from the water catch in the knockout trap.
2.2.6 Thermal Desorption Unit. A clam-shell type oven is required for the
analysis of direct thermal desorption sorbent tubes. The oven shall be capable of
increasing the temperature of the desorption tubes rapidly to recommended
desorption temperature.
2.2.7 Ultrasonic Bath. Small bath used to agitate sorbent material and
desorption solvent. Ice water shall be used in the bath because of heat transfer
caused by operation of the bath.
2.2.8 Desorption Vials. Four-dram (15-mL) capacity borosilicate glass vials
with Teflon-lined caps.
2.2.9 Reagents.
2.2.9.1 Water. Same as specified in Section 2.1.8.2.
2.2.9.2 Desorption Solvent. Appropriate high-purity (99.99 percent) solvent for
desorption shall be used. Analysis shall be performed on each lot to determine
purity.
2.3 Analytical System. A gas chromatograph (GC) is commonly used to analyze the
test compounds from the sample collection and recovery procedure. If a GC technique
has been chosen as the analytical technique, Method 18 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A)
may be used as a guideline for determining the appropriate GC column and GC
detector based on the test compounds to be determined.
2.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. The GC shall be equipped with a constant-temperature
liquid injection port or a heated sampling loop/valve system, as appropriate. The
GC oven shall be temperature-programmable over the useful range of the GC column.
The choice of detectors is based on the test compounds to be determined.
2.3.2 GC Column. Select the appropriate GC column based on (1) literature
review or previous experience, (2) polarity of the analytes, (3) capacity of the
column, or (4) resolving power (i.e., length, diameter, film thickness) required.
2.3.3 Data System. A programmable electronic integrator for recording,
analyzing, and storing the signal generated by the GC detector.
2.3.4 Reagents. The gases required for GC operation shall be of the highest
obtainable quality. Consult the operating manual for recommended settings.
3.0 Sample Purge and Analysis Procedure.
3.1 Purge Procedure.
3.1.1 Sample Recovery. Sample recovery refers to the portion of this method
that uses the purge conditions established by Method 25D to remove the VOs from the
sample matrix. The glassware and associated fittings (see Figure 4) shall be
assembled and leak- checked to approximately 7 psig.
3.1.2 The sample collection procedure in Method 25D shall be used to collect 10
g of wastewater into PEG, cool, and ship to the laboratory. Remove the sample
container from the cooler and wipe the exterior to remove any ice or water. Weigh
the container and sample to the nearest 0.01 g. Pour the sample from the container
into the purge flask. Rinse the sample container three times with approximately 6
mL of PEG (or the volume needed to total 50 mL of PEG in the purge flask),
transferring the rinses to the purge flask. Add 50 mL of organic-free deionized
water to the purge flask. {SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT}
3.1.3 Allow the purge matrix to equilibrate to 75 plus or minus 2 sup oC. Begin
the sample recovery process by turning the toggle valve on, thus allowing a 6-L/min
flow of pure nitrogen through the purge chamber.
3.1.4 Stop the purge after 30 min. Immediately remove the sorbent tube from the
apparatus and cap both ends. Remove the knockout trap (if used) and transfer the
water catch to a 10-mL volumetric flask. Rinse the trap with organic-free deionized
water and transfer the rinse to the volumetric flask. Dilute to the 10-mL mark with
water. Transfer the water sample to a sample vial and store at 4 sup oC with zero
headspace.
3.2 Sample Analysis Procedure. Sample analysis refers to the portion of this
method that uses the analytical procedures outlined in Method 18 for calibration of
the GC and analysis of the sorbent tube. An alternative analytical procedure
involves direct thermal desorption of test compounds from the sorbent tubes to a
secondary focusing unit (either sorbent or cryogen based). The test compounds are
then transferred to the GC system for analysis. Other sample analysis techniques
may be used upon meeting the recovery criteria listed in Section 3.4.
3.2.1 Recover the test compounds from the sorbent tubes that require solvent
desorption by transferring the adsorbent material to a sample vial containing the
desorption solvent. The desorption solvent shall be the same as the solvent used to
prepare calibration standards. The volume of solvent depends on the amount of
adsorbed material to be desorbed (1.0 mL per 100 mg of adsorbent material is the
general guideline) and also on the amount of test compounds present. Final volume
adjustment and/or dilution can be made so that the concentration of test compounds
in the desorption solvent is bracketed by the concentration of the calibration
solutions. Ultrasonicate the desorption solvent for 15 min in an ice bath. Allow
the sample to sit for a period of time so that the adsorbent material can settle to
the bottom of the vial. Transfer the solvent with a pasteur pipet (minimizing the
amount of adsorbent material taken) to another vial and store at 4 sup oC.
3.2.2 The GC detector shall be calibrated with a minimum of three standards
(low, medium, high) whose concentrations bracket the expected concentrations of
test compounds from the adsorbent tubes. If a solvent desorption technique is used,
liquid calibration standards at three concentration levels shall be prepared from a
stock solution containing each organic test compound. For the analysis of sorbent
tubes designed for direct thermal desorption, certified gaseous standards
containing a mixture of the test compounds or individual test compounds bracketing
the expected concentration range shall be used to calibrate the GC detector.
3.2.3 The analytical system shall be certified free from contaminants before a
calibration is performed. Analyze a blank to determine the cleanliness of the
system. The calibration standards are used to determine the linearity of the
analytical system. Analyze daily the three calibration standards in triplicate
starting with the lowest level and continuing to the highest level. If the
triplicate analyses do not agree within 5 percent of their average, additional
analyses will be needed. Calculate the response factor (Equation 3, section 4.4)
from the average area counts of the three injections. Average the response factors
of the standards for each compound. The linearity of the detector is acceptable if
the response factor of each compound at a particular concentration is within 5
percent of the overall mean response factor for that compound.
3.2.4 Analyze the samples (the desorption solvent or the adsorbant tubes
utilizing thermal desorption) using the same analytical parameters used for the
calibration standard. Triplicate injections must agree within 5 percent of their
average if solvent desorption is used, or within 10 percent of their average if
direct thermal desorption is used. Calculate the total weight detected for each
compound (Equation 4, section 4.5). The slope (area/amount) and y-intercept are
calculated from the line bracketed between the two closest calibration points. The
final concentration of each individual test compound is calculated (Equation 5,
section 4.6) by dividing the total weight detected for that compound (Equation 4,
section 4.5) by the weight of the original sample (Equation 2, section 4.3).
3.3 Water Blank. A system blank shall be analyzed with each set of wastewater
samples and during the recovery efficiency study to determine the cleanliness of
the purge and recovery system. A water blank is generated by adding 60 mL of
organic-free deionized water to 50 mL of PEG in the purge chamber. Sample and
analyze the water blank as the wastewater samples would be treated (sections 3.1
and 3.2).
3.4 Recovery Efficiency Study. Determine the individual recovery efficiency
(RE) for each compound of interest. To determine the RE, generate a water blank
(section 3.3) and use the internal standard injection port to introduce a known
volume of spike solution containing the compounds of interest at the levels
expected in the wastewater sample. Follow the purge procedures outlined in section
3.1. Introduce the spike solution by injecting a known volume into the injection
port located between the Method 25D oven and the knockout trap. The injection of
the spike solution shall be made immediately after the purge gas has been
introduced (section 3.1.3). Analyze the recovery efficiency evaluation sample using
the techniques to be utilized in analyzing the wastewater samples (section 3.2).
Determine the recovery efficiency (Equation 1, s ection 4.2) by comparing the
amount of compound recovered to the theoretical amount spiked.The RE shall be "0.50
and greater than 1.30 for each of the compounds of interest. If the RE is less than
0.50 or greater than 1.30 for a particular compound(s), an alternative sample
collection and analysis technique shall be used for that compound(s) (i.e., change
the adsorbent material, change the desorption solvent, use direct thermal
desorption of test compounds from the sorbent tubes, choose a different analytical
technique).
4.0 Calculations
4.1 Definitions and Variables
A sub S Mean area counts of test compound in standard when analyzed by
analytical instrument.
A sub u Mean area counts of test compound in sample.
b y-intercept of the line formed between the two closest calibration standards
that bracket the concentration of the sample.
C sub T Theoretical amount of test compound ( mu g) in calibration standard.
CF Correction for adjusting final amount of sample detected for losses during
individual sample runs.
PPM Final concentration of test compound in waste sample ( mu g/g).
RE Recovery efficiency for adjusting final amount of sample detected for losses
due to inefficient trapping and desorption techniques.
RF Response factor for a test compound, calculated from a calibration standard.
S Slope of the line (area counts/C sub T) formed between two closest
calibration points that bracket the concentration of the test compound in the
sample.
W sub B Weight of test compounds in water blank ( mu g).
W sub C Actual weight of test compound in spike solution based on theoretical
amount in recovery efficiency study ( mu g).
W sub E Presampling weight of vial and PEG for the wastewater sample (g).
W sub F Postsampling weight of vial, PEG and wastewater for the sample (g).
W sub S Weight of wastewater sample (g).
W sub T Weight of test compound detected ( mu g).
W sub X Weight of test compound measured during analysis of recovery efficiency
spike samples ( mu g).
4.2 Recovery efficiency for determining trapping/desorption efficiency of
individual test compounds in the spike solution, decimal value.
RE
W sub X -W sub B / W sub C
(1)
4.3 Weight of wastewater sample (g).
W sub S W sub F-W sub E (2)
4.4 Response Factor for individual test compounds.
R.F.
C sub T / A sub S
(3)
4.5 Corrected weight of a test compound in the sample, in mu g.
W sub T
A sub u -b / S
X
1 / RE
X
1 / CF
(4)
4.6 Final concentration of a test compound in the sample in ppmw.
PPM
W sub T / W sub S
(5)
FR Doc. 92-28292; Filed 12-30-92; 8:45 am; BILLING CODE 6560-50-M