60566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5916–5]

RIN–2060–AE83

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants Pesticide

Active Ingredient Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for the pesticide

active ingredient (PAI) production

source category under section 112 of the

Clean Air Act as amended (CAA). The

intent of the proposed standard is to

reduce emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) from existing and new

facilities that manufacture PAI used in

herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.

The proposed standards protect human

health and the environment by reducing

HAP emissions to the level

corresponding to the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

through the use of pollution prevention

measures and control strategies. The

major HAP emitted by facilities covered

by this proposed rule include toluene,

methanol, methyl chloride, and

hydrogen chloride (HCl). All of these

pollutants can cause reversible or

irreversible toxic effects following

exposure. The proposed rule is

estimated to reduce HAP emissions

from existing facilities by 5,150

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (5,680 tons

per year (tons/yr)), a reduction of 76

percent from the baseline emission

level. Because many of these pollutants

are also volatile organic compounds

(VOC), which are precursors to ambient

ozone, the proposed rule would aid in

the reduction of tropospheric ozone.

The emission reductions achieved by

these standards, when combined with

the emission reductions achieved by

other similar standards, will achieve the

primary goal of the Clean Air Act (the

Act), as amended in 1990, which is to

‘‘enhance the quality of the Nation’s air

resources so as to promote the public

health and welfare and the productive

capacity of its population.’’

The July 16, 1992 source category list

included an agricultural chemicals

industry group that contained 10 source

categories. Today’s notice groups these

10 agricultural chemicals source

categories into one source category,

renames the source category, and adds

additional chemicals to the source

category.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before January 9, 1998.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by December 1, 1997, a public

hearing will be held on December 10,

1997 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons

interested in attending the hearing

should call Ms. Maria Noell at (919)

541–5607 to verify that a hearing will be

held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact EPA by December 1, 1997 by

contacting Ms. Maria Noell, Organic

Chemicals Group, (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5607.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE–

131), Attention: Docket No. A–95–20,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Comments on the proposed NESHAP

may also be submitted electronically by

following the instructions provided in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email.

Public Hearing. The public hearing, if

required, will be held at the EPA’s

Office of Administration Auditorium,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–20,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA’s

Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall,

Room 1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the MACT

standard, contact Mr. Lalit Banker at

(919) 541–5420, Organic Chemicals

Group, Emission Standards Division

(MD–13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic filing. Electronic comments

can be sent directly to the EPA at: a-andr-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or

6.1 format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[A–95–20]. Electronic comments on this

proposed determination may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Regulated entities. Entities potentially

regulated are those which produce as

primary intended products PAI’s that

are used in herbicides, insecticides, or

fungicides and are located at facilities

that are major sources as defined in

section 112 of the Act. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Regulated entities

Industry ................................................. • Producers of the active ingredients (as defined under FIFRA section 2(a)) used in herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides. Typically, production of these compounds is described by the SIC codes 2879

and 2869.

• Producers of any integral intermediate used in the onsite production of an active ingredient used in a

herbicide, insecticide, or fungicide, provided that 50 percent or more of the annual production of the

intermediate is used in pesticide active ingredient processes.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This

table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table

could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1360 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,

consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60567

Basis and Purpose and

Supplementary Information Documents.

The contents of this notice are available

in Docket No. A–95–20, on the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN), or

from the EPA contact person listed in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. The TTN, a network of

electronic bulletin boards developed

and operated by the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. The service is free,

except for the cost of a telephone call.

Dial (919) 541–5742 for up to a 14,400

bps modem transfer. The TTN may also

be accessed via TELNET at the Internet

web site address http://

ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov. For further

information, contact the TTN HELP line

at (919) 541–5384, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

The basis and purpose document

(BPD), containing much of the rationale

for these proposed standards, is also

available on the TTN. The

supplementary information document

(SID) for the proposed standard, which

contains a compilation of technical

memoranda, may be obtained from the

docket or from the U.S. EPA Library

(MD–35), Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541–2777. Please refer to ‘‘Emissions

from Pesticide Active Ingredient

Production—Supplementary

Information Document’’ (located in

docket No. A–95–20).

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. List of Source Categories

A. Original Source Categories

B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active

Ingredients

C. Single Source Category

D. Change of the Source Category Name

II. Background

A. Summary of Collected Data

B. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing this Rule

C. Regulatory Background

III. Authority for NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Authority for Development of RiskBased Standards

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories to be Regulated

B. Pollutants to be Regulated and

Associated Environmental and Health

Benefits

C. Affected Sources

D. Format of the Standards

E. Proposed Standards

F. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions

G. Monitoring Requirements

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

V. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost,

and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

B. Air Impacts

C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

D. Energy Impacts

E. Cost Impacts

F. Economic Impacts

VI. Emissions Averaging

VII. Solicitation of Comments

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility

G. Unfunded Mandates

H. Miscellaneous

I. List of Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that

EPA evaluate and control emissions of

HAP. The control of HAP is achieved

through promulgation of emission

standards under sections 112(d) and

112(f) and work practice and equipment

standards under section 112(h) for

categories of sources that emit HAP. On

July 16, 1992, EPA published an initial

list of major and area source categories

to be regulated (57 FR 31576). Today’s

notice groups the original agricultural

chemicals source categories into one

source category, renames the source

category, and adds additional chemicals

to the category.

A. Original Source Categories

Included on the original list were

major sources emitting HAP from 10

categories of agricultural chemicals

production; in addition to being an

agricultural chemical, each of these

compounds is also a PAI. One source

category on the original source category

list, butadiene furfural cotrimer (R–11)

production, was moved from the

polymers and resins industry group to

this industry group on June 4, 1996 (61

FR 28197). Butadiene furfural cotrimer

(R–11) is an insecticide commonly used

for delousing cows. The EPA decided to

include butadiene furfural cotrimer (R–

11) production with the agricultural

chemicals source categories because: (1)

There are similarities in process

operations, emission characteristics, and

control device applicability and costs,

and (2) it is a PAI.

B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active

Ingredients

In developing the proposed rule, the

EPA identified a number of other PAI

production operations that were not on

the initial source category list. It was

determined that production of these

compounds is similar to the production

of the compounds in the 11 initial

agricultural chemical source categories.

Production of these other PAI’s are

being added to the source category list

under section 112(c) of the Act based on

information obtained during the

gathering of HAP emission data for this

proposed rule. From this information, it

was determined that: (1) There are

similarities in process operations,

emission characteristics, control device

applicability and costs, and

opportunities for pollution prevention

of these PAI’s with the listed

agricultural chemicals, and (2) the

production of these PAI’s occurs at

facilities that are major sources. Like the

original agricultural chemicals, these

PAI’s are those that are used in

herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides

that are registered as end-use products

under section 3 of Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA).

C. Single Source Category

In developing the proposed rule, EPA

decided not to set MACT for each

individual PAI chemical but, rather, to

aggregate all PAI’s together under the

same source category. The PAI’s that

EPA proposes to include in this source

category are all PAI’s that are used to

produce insecticide, herbicide, or

fungicide products. Data gathered from

the PAI production industry indicate

that the process equipment, emission

characteristics, and applicable control

technologies are sufficiently similar for

the broad group of sources that EPA

intends to regulate under a single set of

standards. There are no significant

differences in the types of control

technologies applicable to controlling

emissions from the various PAI

processes. Common HAP control

technologies are applicable to the

production operations at all of the

facilities. Based on these factors, EPA

concluded that determining MACT for

each individual PAI is not warranted.

The EPA believes that it is technically

feasible to regulate emissions from a

variety of PAI processes by a single set

of emission standards. Similar to the

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) for

the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI),

separate requirements are proposed for

process vents, storage tanks, equipment

leaks, and wastewater HAP emission

points (often referred to as planks). The

set of standards also establishes

different control requirements based on

distinctions in the size of the emission

points. Variability in the characteristics

of the production processes for each
60568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

individual PAI chemical may affect the

quantity of HAP emissions. This

variability has been addressed by

incorporating cutoffs for uncontrolled

emissions in the standards for

individual planks.

Several other reasons support the

development of a single set of emission

standards for a group of PAI processes.

Many of these PAI’s are only produced

at a single facility or by a single

company. In addition, data indicate that

many of the PAI processes that EPA is

proposing to regulate by this set of

standards are collocated within

individual facilities; at some facilities,

multiple PAI’s are also produced in the

same equipment (i.e., flexible

processing equipment). Facilities with

collocated PAI manufacturing could

more easily comply with a single set of

emission standards than with individual

standards for each of the collocated

processes. Several industry

representatives in the partnership group

also expressed interest in a generic

regulation that would specify consistent

requirements for a wide range of

processes.

Another justification for developing a

single set of emission standards to

regulate production of a variety of PAI’s

is that it is more efficient and less costly

for EPA to develop a single standard

than to develop separate standards for

several individually listed source

categories which have similar emission

characteristics and applicable control

technologies. Development of a single

set of standards would avoid the costs

associated with having to develop

emission standards for separate source

categories of PAI’s. A single set of

standards for PAI manufacturing will

ensure that process equipment with

comparable HAP emissions and control

technologies are subject to consistent

emission control requirements. In

addition, compliance and enforcement

activities would be more efficient and

less costly.

D. Change of the Source Category Name

Under today’s action, EPA is revising

the source category list published under

section 112(c) of the Act to add a source

category called ‘‘Pesticide Active

Ingredient Production’’ and to subsume

the 11 original, separate PAI production

source categories into that category, as

well as to include other identified PAI

operations which are major sources of

HAP. All 11 agricultural chemicals on

the initial source category list are PAI’s;

all of the other pesticide chemicals

identified during data gathering and that

have been added to the list are also

PAI’s. Because these other PAI’s have

been added to the source category list

and because they have been grouped

with the 11 agricultural chemicals,

which are also PAI’s, the EPA decided

that it is appropriate to change the title

of this NESHAP source category.

Effective by this notice, EPA is changing

the title of the source category to

‘‘pesticide active ingredient

production.’’ This change is appropriate

to avoid confusion regarding the

definition of the source category and to

aid in distinguishing the types of air

emission sources addressed by this

source category.

II. Background

A. Summary of Collected Data

Data on this industry were collected

from 20 major sources that manufacture

PAI’s. Production methods used in the

manufacture of PAI’s include both batch

and continuous operations. Batch

operations make up approximately twothirds of the processes, but continuous

processes produce more than 50 percent

of the annual PAI production. The sizes

of the facilities that are major sources of

HAP emissions range from those that

make one active ingredient at the rate of

several hundred Mg/yr to those that

produce numerous intermediates and

active ingredients on the scale of tens of

thousands Mg/yr. Air emissions of HAP

compounds originate from breathing

and withdrawal losses from storage

tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks

from piping equipment used to transfer

HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and

volatilization of HAP from wastewater

streams. Data obtained from the 20

major sources show at least 40 different

HAP are emitted from various PAI

production processes. Among the most

prevalent are toluene and methanol,

which account for almost 40 percent of

all baseline HAP emissions at these 20

plants. Detailed information describing

manufacturing processes and emissions

can be found in chapters 3 and 5 of the

Basis and Purpose Document (located in

docket No. A–95–20).

As of 1991, over 250 U.S. companies

at approximately 329 facilities (both

major and area sources) were producing

PAI’s. This is the number of facilities

that were registered with EPA under

section 7 of FIFRA as producers of

technical material or active ingredients

for manufacturing use only. The number

of plants producing active ingredients

for use in herbicides, insecticides, and

fungicides may be less than 329 because

the section 7 data base reported some

formulated products as active

ingredients and it also included

research facilities in the category of

active ingredient manufacturers. Also,

some plants may be producing active

ingredients only for use in rodenticides

or antimicrobials. Typically,

manufacturing operations covered by

this NESHAP are classified under North

American Industrial Classification

System (NAICS) Codes 325199 and

32532 (i.e., previously known as

Standard Industrial Classification

System Codes 2869 and 2879). An

estimated 78 facilities are considered to

be major sources according to the Act

criteria of having the potential to emit

10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or

25 tons/yr or more of any combination

of HAP. This estimate is based on the

extrapolation of information from 12

State regulatory agencies that identified

which of the 329 facilities in their States

were major sources of HAP.

The proposed standards would apply

to all major sources that produce any of

the PAI’s that are used to produce

insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide enduse products. Facilities that are area

sources, facilities that produce only

active ingredients that are not used in

insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide

products, and facilities that only

formulate or repackage pesticide

products would not be subject to these

standards.

B. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing This Rule

The Act was created in part ‘‘to

protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population’’

(the Act, section 101(b)(1)). Section

112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP believed

to cause adverse health or

environmental effects. Section 112(d) of

the Act requires that emission standards

be promulgated for all categories and

subcategories of major sources of these

HAP and for many smaller ‘‘area’’

sources listed for regulation under

section 112(c) in accordance with the

schedules listed under section 112(c).

Major sources are defined as those that

emit or have the potential to emit at

least 10 tons/yr of any single HAP or 25

tons/yr of any combination of HAP.

On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA

published the initial list of categories of

sources slated for regulation. As noted

above, this list included 10 categories of

Agricultural Chemicals Production;

with today’s notice, these source

categories are combined into a single

category called Pesticide Active

Ingredient Production, and additional

PAI processes are added to the source

category. The statute requires emissions

standards for the listed source categories

to be promulgated between November

1992 and November 2000. On December

3, 1993, the EPA published a schedule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60569

for promulgating these standards (58 FR

83841).

In the Act, Congress specified that

each standard for major sources must

require the maximum reduction in

emissions of HAP that EPA determines

is achievable considering cost, health

and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. In essence, these MACT

standards would ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better controlled and

lower emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to

citizens that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions.

Available emissions data, collected

during development of this proposed

rule, show that pollutants that are listed

in section 112(b)(1) of the Act and are

emitted in substantial amounts by the

PAI production source category include

toluene, methanol, methyl chloride, and

HCl. The PAI production source

category also emits small amounts of

other listed pollutants including

benzene, benzyl chloride, 1,3-butadiene,

carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,

ethylbenzene, ethyl chloride, ethylene

dichloride, hexachlorobenzene,

hexachlorocyclopentadiene,

hexachloroethane, hexane, methylene

chloride, tetrachloroethylene,

trichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene,

xylenes, acetonitrile, captan,

formaldehyde, glycol ethers,

hydroquinone, methyl ethyl ketone,

methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl

isocyanate, napthalene, phosgene,

chlorine, and hydrogen cyanide. Some

of these pollutants have been classified

as known, possible, or probable human

carcinogens when inhaled, and all can

cause reversible and irreversible toxic

effects following exposure. These effects

include respiratory and skin irritation,

neurological disorders (e.g., dizziness,

headache, and narcosis), effects upon

the eye (including blindness), damage to

organ systems (e.g., liver, kidney, and

testes), and in extreme cases, death.

These pollutants have the potential to

be reduced by implementation of the

proposed emission limits.

The list of HAP in section 112(b) of

the Act includes 22 HAP compounds (or

classes of compounds) that have been

reported to be possible endocrine

disruptors. Many of these 22 HAP are

PAI’s, or are used in the production of

PAI’s, and, thus, could possibly be

emitted from PAI manufacturing plants.

Only one of the 22 HAP compounds was

reported to be emitted from 20 surveyed

plants in the source category, and the

quantity emitted was very low relative

to the quantity of the total HAP

emissions from the source category. The

other HAP that are possible endocrine

disruptors are each produced (or used)

by only one or a small number of

facilities, and their vapor pressures tend

to be low relative to the solvents and

raw materials used in the PAI

manufacturing processes (the lower the

vapor pressure, the less material that

will volatilize). As a result, the HAP that

are possible endocrine disruptors are

likely emitted in small quantities, if at

all, relative to the HAP listed above. The

EPA is requesting comments and

information on the emission levels of

these possible endocrine disruptors

from PAI manufacturing processes.

The Agency is also requesting

comments on whether the risk posed by

endocrine disruptors warrants more

stringent requirements than those

proposed. Based upon the criteria used

in selecting the proposed regulatory

option, the Agency judged that the

existing information on emissions and

health effects did not justify the

additional cost of more stringent

standards. Therefore, in providing

comments, commenters should (to the

extent possible) provide a quantitative

risk assessment to support the need for

the adoption of more stringent

requirements.

The alternatives considered in the

development of this regulation,

including those alternatives selected as

standards for new and existing sources,

are based on process and emissions data

received from 20 of the existing

facilities known by EPA to be in

operation. Regulatory alternatives more

stringent than the MACT floor (the

minimum control level required by the

Act) were selected when they were

judged to be reasonable, considering

cost, nonair impacts, and energy

requirements.

The proposed standards give existing

facilities 3 years from the date of

promulgation to comply. This is the

maximum amount of time allowed by

the Act. New facilities are required to

comply with the standard upon startup.

Included in the proposed rule are

methods for determining initial

compliance as well as monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. All of these components

are necessary to ensure that affected

sources will comply with the standards

both initially and over time. However,

the EPA has made every effort to

simplify the requirements in the rule.

The EPA has also attempted to maintain

consistency with existing regulations by

either incorporating text from existing

regulations or referencing the applicable

sections.

Representatives from other interested

EPA offices and programs, State

environmental agency personnel, and

industry participated in the regulatory

development process as MACT

partnership members. The partnership

members were given opportunities to

review and comment on the regulation

prior to proposal. Industry, regulatory

authorities, environmental groups, and

other interested parties will have

another opportunity to comment on the

proposed standards and provide

additional information during the

public comment period.

C. Regulatory Background

The proposed rule implements

section 112(d) of the Act, which

requires the Administrator to regulate

emissions of HAP listed in section

112(b) of the Act. The intent of this rule

is to protect the public health and the

environment by requiring new and

existing major sources to reduce

generation of emissions by using

pollution prevention strategies or to

control emissions to the level achievable

by the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT), taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reductions, any nonair quality

and other air quality related health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

In 1994, EPA promulgated National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject

to the Negotiated Regulation for

Equipment Leaks (59 FR 19587).

Processes producing Captafol,

Captan, Chlorothalonil, Dacthal, and

TordonTM acid that use butadiene,

carbon tetrachloride, methylene

chloride, or ethylene dichloride as a

reactant or process solvent, are subject

to the Negotiated Regulation for

Equipment Leaks. The EPA is proposing

today to require control of leaking

components that are currently not

subject to the Negotiated Regulation for

Equipment Leaks, but that contain HAP

and are associated with processes in this

source category.

III. Authority for NESHAP Decision

Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA

the authority to establish national

standards to reduce air emissions from

sources that emit one or more HAP.

Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to

be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c)

directs the Agency to use this pollutant

list to develop and publish a list of

source categories for which NESHAP
60570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

will be developed; this list was

published in the Federal Register on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The

Agency must list all known categories

and subcategories of ‘‘major sources’’

that emit one or more of the listed HAP.

A major source is defined in section

112(a) as any stationary source or group

of stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common

control that emits or has the potential to

emit in the aggregate, considering

controls, 10 tons/yr or more of any one

HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any

combination of HAP.

Under section 112(c)(1) of the Act,

List of Source Categories, the

Administrator has the authority to

establish additional source categories as

seems appropriate. Ten (revised to 11)

categories of agricultural chemicals

were included on the original list.

Because the processes, HAP emissions,

control technologies, and control costs

for these 11 agricultural chemicals are

similar to the processes, HAP emissions,

control technologies, and control costs

for other PAI’s, the Administrator

included other PAI’s on the source

category list and grouped the

agricultural chemicals and the PAI’s

together into one source category.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to

control HAP emissions from both new

and existing sources according to the

statutory directives set out in section

112(d) of the Act. The statute requires

the standards to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of HAP

that is achievable for new or existing

sources. This control level is based on

the ‘‘maximum achievable control

technology’’ (MACT). The selection of

MACT must reflect consideration of the

cost of achieving the emission

reduction, any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements for control levels more

stringent than the floor (described

below).

The MACT floor is the least stringent

level for MACT standards. For new

sources, the standards for a source

category or subcategory ‘‘shall not be

less stringent than the emission control

that is achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator’’ (section

112(d)(3)). Existing source standards can

be no less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the best

performing 12 percent of the existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources or the average

emission limitation achieved by the best

performing 5 sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources (section 112(d)(3)). The

determination of the MACT floor for

existing sources under today’s rule is

that the average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing sources

is based on a measure of central

tendency, such as the arithmetic mean,

median, or mode.

In establishing the floors, the EPA

adopted a different approach in order to

reduce the paperwork burden on the

industry. Through literature reviews,

State contacts, and plant visits, EPA

identified companies which appeared to

have the best controlled plants and sent

data collection requests only to these

companies. In identifying these

companies, EPA also considered the

need to include a variety of process and

product types in the survey. Data for the

PAI production industry were collected

from facilities that achieve high

emissions reductions, produce a variety

of PAI’s, use a variety of production

processes, and are major sources. As the

standards for existing sources are based

on the best-performing 12 percent of

sources, the number of best-performing

sources for this source category is 9

facilities (i.e., 12 percent of 78

facilities). Information from the data

collection requests was received from 20

facilities. The best-performing 9

facilities are included in these 20

surveyed facilities.

C. Authority for Development of RiskBased Standards

The Act includes an exception to the

general statutory requirement to

establish emission standards based on

MACT. Section 112(d)(4) of the Act

provides EPA with authority, at its

discretion, to develop risk-based

standards for HAP ‘‘for which a health

threshold has been established,’’

provided that the standard achieves an

‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ Under this

authority, EPA may propose not to

regulate HAP emissions if the results of

exposure assessment modeling show

exposure levels to HAP emissions to be

below the health threshold value by an

ample margin of safety, and if no

significant or widespread adverse

environmental effects from HAP

emissions are expected.

The following discussion in today’s

notice summarizes the Agency’s

determination of HCl as a threshold

pollutant, an ecological assessment of

HCl, and the data that would have to be

provided for EPA to consider adopting

a risk-based approach to regulate HCl

emissions from PAI manufacturing

facilities.

Based on negative carcinogenicity

data in one animal study, and on EPA’s

knowledge of how HCl reacts in the

body and its likely mechanism of action,

the Agency presumptively considers

HCl to be a threshold pollutant. For HCl

(and other pollutants that are

considered to have a ‘‘threshold of

safety’’ below which adverse effects are

not expected), information on

noncarcinogenic effects must be

evaluated to determine the potential

hazards associated with exposure. One

approach for determining the potential

hazards of a pollutant is to use its

Inhalation Reference Concentration

(RfC). The RfC for HCl is 20 micrograms

per cubic meter (μg/m3); this value was

derived from a single animal study.

The emissions standards must also

protect against significant and

widespread adverse environmental

effects to wildlife, aquatic life, and other

natural resources. Based on a review of

published studies, the Agency

concluded that the RfC can reasonably

be expected to protect against

widespread adverse effects in animal

species, and that effects on plant tissues

and aquatic organisms likely will be

local rather than widespread. The HCl

concentrations were more than an order

of magnitude above the RfC in some of

the studies in which deleterious effects

were observed; other studies did not

report the HCl concentrations.

The Agency has not conducted an

exposure assessment for the PAI

manufacturing industry because the

data needed in the analysis, including

the identity of some of the 78 estimated

affected sources, are not available.

Furthermore, the burden to EPA and the

industry of collecting and analyzing the

data may not be warranted given the

relatively small potential reduction in

HCl control costs that could occur.

However, the Agency solicits comments

on the adequacy, desirability, and

feasibility of developing a risk-based

standard for HCl emissions from PAI

manufacturing facilities. For EPA to

develop a risk-based standard for HCl

emissions from PAI manufacturing

facilities, the industry would need to

provide data for each affected source.

Specifically, the HCl emissions and

stack parameters for each HCl emission

point (stack and fugitive sources) at the

contiguous facility (i.e., both PAI and all

other processes) for each affected source

would be needed.

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

This section describes the source

category and pollutants covered, defines

an affected source, and summarizes the

proposed rule requirements for each

emission point. A pollution prevention

alternative is also summarized in this

section. For an explanation of the

process and rationale used to select
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60571

these requirements, see chapters 6 and

8 of the Basis and Purpose Document

(located in docket No. A–95–20).

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

The proposed standards would

regulate HAP emissions from facilities

that are major sources that produce

PAI’s for use in insecticide, herbicide,

or fungicide products. The standards

would apply to existing sources as well

as new sources.

B. Pollutants To Be Regulated and

Associated Environmental and Health

Benefits

Pesticide Active Ingredients

production facilities emit an estimated

6,750 Mg/yr of organic and inorganic

HAP. Organic HAP’s include methylene

chloride, methanol, and toluene as well

as other HAP. Hydrogen chloride is an

inorganic HAP emitted by this industry.

The proposed rule would reduce HAP

emissions from PAI facilities by 76

percent. Some of these pollutants are

considered to be carcinogenic, and all

can cause toxic health effects following

exposure, including nausea, headaches,

and possible reproductive effects. The

EPA does recognize that the degree of

adverse effects to human health can

range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the human health

effects may be experienced is dependent

upon (1) the ambient concentration

observed in the area (e.g., as influenced

by emission rates, meteorological

conditions, and terrain), (2) the

frequency of and duration of exposures,

(3) characteristics of exposed

individuals (e.g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle)

which vary significantly with the

population, and (4) pollutant specific

characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the

environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence).

Most of the organic HAP emitted from

this industry are classified as VOC. The

proposed emission controls for HAP

will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as

well. Emissions of VOC have been

associated with a variety of health and

welfare impacts. Volatile organic

compound emissions, together with

nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the

formation of tropospheric ozone.

Exposure to ambient ozone is

responsible for a series of public health

impacts, such as alterations in lung

capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation;

nausea; and aggravation of existing

respiratory disease. Among the welfare

impacts from exposure to ambient ozone

include damage to selected commercial

timber species and economic losses for

commercially valuable crops such as

soybeans and cotton.

Hydrogen chloride is listed under

section 112(r) of the CAA. The intent of

section 112(r), Prevention of Accidental

Releases, is to focus on chemicals that

pose a significant hazard to the

community should an accident occur, to

prevent their accidental release, and to

minimize consequences should a release

occur. Hydrogen chloride, along with

the other substances listed under

section 112(r)(3), is listed because it is

known to cause, or may be reasonably

anticipated to cause death, injury, or

serious adverse effects to human health

or the environment (see 59 FR 4478,

January 31, 1994). Sources that handle

hydrogen chloride in greater quantities

than the established threshold quantity

under section 112(r)(5) will be subject to

the risk management program

requirements under section 112(r)(7)

(see 58 FR 54190, October 20, 1993).

In essence, the MACT standards

mandated by the CAA will ensure that

all major sources of air toxic emissions

achieve the level of control already

being achieved by the better controlled

and lower emitting sources in each

category. This approach provides

assurance to citizens that each major

source of toxic air pollution will be

required to effectively control its

emissions. In addition, the emission

reductions achieved by these proposed

standards, when combined with the

reductions achieved by other MACT

standards, will contribute to achieving

the primary goal of the CAA, which is

to ‘‘protect and enhance the quality of

the Nation’s air resources so as to

promote the public health and welfare

and the productive capacity of its

population’’ (the CAA, section

101(b)(1)).

C. Affected Sources

The affected source for the purpose of

this regulation is the facility-wide

collection of emission points; these

emission points include process vents,

storage tanks, waste management units

and associated treatment residuals, heat

exchange systems, and equipment

components that are associated with

PAI manufacturing operations.

New sources occur as a result of

reconstructing existing sources,

constructing new ‘‘greenfield’’ facilities,

or adding PAI manufacturing operations

at a plant site that currently does not

produce PAI’s. Additionally, if a facility

adds to the PAI manufacturing

operations at a plant site that is an

existing affected source, the addition

will be subject to the requirements for

new sources provided that the addition

meets the definition of construction in

§ 63.2 of subpart A of part 63 (General

Provisions) and the addition has the

potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of

any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of

any combination of HAP. Otherwise, the

added PAI manufacturing operations are

considered part of the existing source

and would be subject to existing source

standards.

D. Format of the Standards

The proposed standards for gaseous

organic HAP and HCl emissions from

process vents are presented in a

combination of percent reduction and

mass limit format. Facilities will have

the option of using any control

technology, as long as the HAP

reductions or mass limits are achieved.

The format of the proposed standards

for storage tanks is a combination of

equipment standard and performance

standard—tanks that must be controlled

are required to be fitted with floating

roofs or with add-on devices meeting a

percent removal requirement. The

proposed standards for wastewater

emission points allow: (1) Several

percent mass removal options, (2)

concentration limit, (3) mass limit, or (4)

equipment design and operation

formats. The proposed wastewater

standards, and thus the format of the

standards, are the same as in the HON,

except that only a percent mass removal

option is allowed for facilities that have

total HAP loading greater than a

specified cutoff. Equipment leak

standards are in the form of equipment/

work practice standards. Facilities

would be required to implement the

program specified in the proposed

regulation to achieve compliance with

the standards. The proposed standards

for particulate HAP emissions from bag

dumps and product dryers are presented

in a concentration format. Additional

information pertaining to the selection

of the proposed standards is provided in

Chapter 8 of the Basis and Purpose

Document (located in docket No. A–95–

20).

An alternative pollution prevention

standard is also being proposed. This

standard can be met in lieu of meeting

separate standards for process vents,

equipment leaks, storage tanks,

wastewater, bag dumps, and heat

exchange systems associated with each

PAI production process. The format for

this alternative standard is a mass

reduction in HAP consumption per unit

mass of product produced in the

process.

E. Proposed Standards

1. Standards

Table 1 summarizes the proposed

standards for process vents, storage

tanks, wastewater, equipment leaks, bag
60572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

dumps and product dryers, and heat

exchange systems at existing and new

affected sources. The proposed

standards are based on the MACT floor

level of control, except where a more

stringent level of control was

determined to be technically feasible at

a reasonable cost. Detailed information

describing the approach used to

determine the MACT floor and

regulatory alternatives is presented in

the Basis and Purpose Document

(located in docket No. A–95–20).

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR PAI PRODUCTION

Emission source Applicability Requirement

Process vents ................................. Existing:

Processes having uncontrolled organic HAP emissions ≥0.15 Mg/yr.90% for organic HAP per process or <20 ppmv

TOC.

Processes having uncontrolled HCl emissions ≥6.8

Mg/yr.

94% for HCl per process.

Individual process vents meeting TRE criteria that

have gaseous organic HAP emissions controlled

to less than 90% as of proposal date.

98% gaseous organic HAP control per vent or <20

ppmv TOC.

New:

Processes having uncontrolled organic HAP emissions ≥0.15 Mg/yr.98% for organic HAP per process or <20 ppmv TOC

at control device outlet.

Processes having uncontrolled HCl emissions ≥6.8

Mg/yr and <191 Mg/yr.

94% for HCl per process.

Processes having uncontrolled HCl emissions ≥191

Mg/yr.

99.9% for HCl per process.

Storage tanks ................................. Existing: ≥0.11 Mg/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions:

• ≥38 m3 <76 m3 capacity .......................................... 41% control per tank.

• ≥76 m3 capacity ....................................................... 95% control per tank.

New: ≥0.45 kg/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions and

≥26 m3 capacity.

98% control per tank or <20 ppmv TOC at control

device outlet.

Wastewater a ................................... Existing: ≥10,000 ppmw Table 9 compounds at any

flowrate or ≥1,000 ppmw Table 9 compounds at

≥10 L/min.

Reduce concentration of total Table 9 compounds to

<50 ppmw (or other options).

New:

Same criteria as for existing sources ........................ Reduce concentration of total Table 9 compounds to

<50 ppmw (or other options).

Total HAP load in wastewater POD streams ≥2,100

Mg/yr.

99% reduction of Table 9 compounds from all

streams.

Equipment leaks ............................. Subpart H ................................................................... Subpart H with minor changes.

Bag dumps and product dryers ..... All ............................................................................... Particulate HAP concentration not to exceed 0.01

gr/dscf.

Heat exchange systems ................. Each heat exchange system used to cool process

equipment in PAI manufacturing operations.

Monitoring and leak repair program as in HON.

aTable 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.

a. Process Vents. The proposed

standards would require existing

sources to reduce organic HAP and HCl

emissions from process vents.

Specifically, existing sources would be

required to reduce organic HAP

emissions by 90 percent from each

process where the sum of uncontrolled

organic HAP emissions from all vents in

the process is greater than or equal to

0.15 Mg/yr (330 pounds per year [lb/

yr]). Alternatively, the proposed rule

would require that combustion,

recovery, or recapture control devices

meet an outlet total organic carbon

(TOC) concentration of 20 parts per

million by volume (ppmv); the 90

percent reduction requirement would

apply to the sum of uncontrolled

organic HAP emissions from all other

vents in the process. Additionally, the

proposed rule would require organic

HAP emissions from any individual

vent that meets certain annual

emissions and flowrate criteria to be

reduced by 98 weight percent or to an

outlet concentration of 20 ppmv; the 90

percent requirement would apply to the

sum of organic HAP emissions from all

other vents in the process. The proposed

standards would also require existing

sources to reduce HCl emissions by 94

percent from each process where the

sum of uncontrolled emissions from all

vents in the process is greater than or

equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).

New sources would be required to

meet various process-based control

levels. Specifically, for each process

where the sum of the uncontrolled

organic HAP emissions from all vents in

the process is greater than or equal to

0.15 Mg/yr (330 lb/yr), the proposed

standards would require an overall 98

percent reduction in the organic HAP

emissions per process. Alternatively, the

proposed standards would require that

combustion, recovery, or recapture

devices meet an outlet TOC

concentration of 20 ppmv, and the 98

percent reduction requirement would

apply to the sum of uncontrolled

organic HAP emissions from all other

vents in the process. The proposed

standards would also require a 94

percent reduction of HCl emissions from

each process where the sum of

uncontrolled HCl emissions from all

vents in the process is greater than or

equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr) and less

than 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr). The

proposed standards would require new

sources to reduce HCl emissions by 99.9

percent from each process where the

sum of uncontrolled HCl emissions from

all vents in the process is greater than

or equal to 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr).

The proposed standards for organic

HAP from process vents at existing

sources are based on a regulatory

alternative that consists of the MACT

floor level of control for most vents and

a more stringent level of control for

vents that meet certain applicability

criteria. An applicability cutoff, based

on a linear equation relating vent

flowrate and annual HAP load, is used

to determine the vents that have organic
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60573

HAP emissions that must be controlled

to the more stringent level of 98 percent.

The cost of this alternative above the

MACT floor is $2,500/Mg and was

judged to be reasonable. The proposed

standards for HCl from process vents at

existing sources are based on the MACT

floor level. The proposed standards for

both organic HAP and HCl emissions

from process vents at new sources are

based on the MACT floor level for new

sources. For additional information, see

chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis and

Purpose Document (located in docket

No. A–95–20).

b. Storage Tanks. The proposed

standards would require existing

sources to control storage tanks that

have a capacity greater than or equal to

38 cubic meters (m3) (10,000 gal) and

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions

greater than or equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240

lb/yr). Specifically, the proposed

standards would require that organic

HAP emissions be reduced by 41

percent from storage tanks having

volumes greater than or equal to 38 m3

(10,000 gal) and less than 76 m3 (20,000

gallons) and by 95 percent from storage

tanks with capacities greater than or

equal to 76 m3 (20,000 gallons).

However, storage tanks greater than or

equal to 76 m3 (20,000 gallons) that are

currently controlled at or above the floor

level (41 percent) would not be required

to achieve 95 percent. One of the

following control systems can be

applied to meet these requirements:

(1) An internal floating roof with

proper seals and fittings;

(2) An external floating roof with

proper seals and fittings;

(3) An external floating roof converted

to an internal floating roof with proper

seals and fittings; or

(4) A closed vent system with either

a 41 percent or a 95 percent efficient

control device, as appropriate.

New sources would be required to

reduce uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from storage tanks with

capacities greater than or equal to 26 m3

(7,000 gal) and uncontrolled HAP

emissions greater than or equal to 0.45

kg/yr (1.0 lb/yr) by 98 percent or use a

combustion, recovery, or recapture

control device that meets an outlet TOC

concentration of 20 ppmv. This

requirement can be met with a closed

vent system with a 98 percent efficient

control device.

At existing sources, the proposed

standards for storage tanks that have

uncontrolled emissions greater than or

equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240 lb/yr) and

capacities less than 76 m3 (20,000 gal)

are based on the MACT floor control

level. The proposed standards for

storage tanks at existing sources that

have uncontrolled emissions greater

than or equal to 0.11 Mg/yr (240 lb/yr)

and capacities greater than or equal to

76 m3 (20,000 gal) are based on a

regulatory alternative that is more

stringent than the MACT floor. Floating

roof technology is considerably less

expensive than add-on controls for

storage tanks with capacities greater

than or equal to 76 m3 (20,000 gal);

therefore, there is no additional cost for

the regulatory alternative above the

MACT floor. The proposed standards for

storage tanks at new sources are based

on the MACT floor level for new

sources.

c. Wastewater. The wastewater

provisions are similar to the HON

wastewater provisions (subpart G of 40

CFR part 63), with modifications made

for the PAI production industry. The

proposed standards would require

existing and new sources to control

Group 1 wastewater streams. Under the

proposed standards, existing and new

sources would be required to determine

Group 1 status for both process

wastewater streams and maintenance

wastewater streams. A wastewater

stream is a Group 1 stream for

compounds listed in Table 9 of the

appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63

(i.e., ‘‘Table 9’’ compounds in the

remainder of this discussion) if:

(1) The total annual average

concentration of Table 9 compounds is

greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at

any flowrate; or

(2) The total annual average

concentration of Table 9 compounds is

greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and

the annual average flowrate is greater

than or equal to 10 liters per minute (L/

min) (2.6 gallons per minute (gal/min)).

The proposed standards would

require existing sources with Group 1

wastewater streams for Table 9

compounds:

(1) To reduce the concentration of

Table 9 compounds to less than 50

ppmw;

(2) To use a steam stripper with

specific design and operating

requirements;

(3) To reduce the mass flow rate of

Table 9 compounds by at least 99

percent;

(4) To reduce the mass flow rate of

Table 9 compounds by an amount equal

to or greater than the Fr value in Table

9;

(5) For a source using biotreatment for

at least one wastewater stream that is

Group 1 for Table 9 compounds, to

achieve a required mass removal greater

than or equal to 95 percent for Table 9

compounds; or

(6) To treat wastewater streams with

permitted RCRA units or by discharging

to a permitted underground injection

well.

The proposed standards would

require new sources with Group 1

wastewater streams for Table 9

compounds to control Table 9

compounds to the same level required

for existing sources. In addition, new

sources with a total mass flow rate from

the source of 2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/

yr) or more of Table 9 compounds

would be required to reduce the mass

flow rate of Table 9 compounds from all

wastewater streams by 99 percent. This

difference from the HON was needed

because the MACT floor for new sources

is more stringent than the provisions in

the HON for facilities that exceed this

mass flow rate cutoff.

A source is exempted from the

wastewater standards if:

(1) The total mass flow rate of Table

9 compounds in Group 1 streams is less

than 1 Mg/yr (1.1 tons/yr); or

(2) If the total mass flow rate of Table

9 compounds in untreated Group 1

wastewater streams and in Group 1

wastewater streams that are treated to

levels less stringent than the levels

required by the standard is less than 1

Mg/yr (1.1 tons/yr).

The proposed standards for

wastewater at existing sources are based

on a regulatory alternative more

stringent than the MACT floor control

level. The cost of the regulatory

alternative was determined to be

$3,070/Mg. This value was judged to be

acceptable based on decisions for

previously promulgated part 63 rules for

sources with organic HAP emissions. In

addition, this regulatory alternative

requires the same degree of control as

the HON. The wastewater streams from

PAI units are similar to those released

from HON units, and often occur at the

same plant sites.

The proposed standards for

wastewater at new sources with a total

HAP load less than 2,100 Mg/yr (2,300

tons/yr) are based on a regulatory

alternative more stringent than the

MACT floor level for new sources.

These proposed standards are the same

as the proposed standards for existing

sources; therefore, the cost was judged

to be reasonable. Proposed standards for

new sources with a total HAP load

greater than or equal to 2,100 Mg/yr

(2,300 tons/yr) are based on the MACT

floor control level for new sources,

which, as noted above, is more stringent

than the standards for new sources that

have a mass flow rate below the mass

flow rate cutoff. For additional

information, see chapters 6 and 8 of the

Basis and Purpose Document (located in

docket No. A–95–20).
60574 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

d. Equipment Leaks. The proposed

standards would require that new and

existing PAI production sources

implement for each process a leak

detection and repair (LDAR) program

that is slightly modified from the

program specified in the Negotiated

Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR

part 63, subpart H). The LDAR program

specified under subpart H requires

specific equipment modifications and

work practices that reduce emissions

from equipment leaks. This program

was modified to consider the emissions

from receivers and surge control vessels

to be from process vents rather than

equipment leaks.

For existing sources, the MACT floor

for equipment leaks was determined to

be no control, and the regulatory

alternative consisted of the LDAR

program specified under subpart H. The

proposed standards for existing sources

are based on the regulatory alternative

because the LDAR program was

determined to be technically feasible,

and the cost of $550/Mg was judged to

be reasonable. For new sources, the

proposed standards are based on the

MACT floor level of control.

The EPA will consider consolidating

the equipment leaks program specified

in this subpart (subpart MMM) with the

subpart H LDAR program after

promulgation of subpart MMM. The

EPA will also consider cross-referencing

the Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) if the

CAR is complete before this rule is

promulgated.

e. Bag Dumps and Process Dryers.

Under the proposed standards,

particulate HAP emissions from bag

dumps and dryers at both new and

existing sources would not be allowed

to exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard

cubic feet (gr/dscf). The standard is

based on the MACT floor for both new

and existing sources. For additional

information, see chapters 6 and 8 of the

Basis and Purpose Document (located in

docket No. A–95–20).

f. Heat Exchange Systems. Heat

exchange systems that cool process

equipment or materials used in PAI

manufacturing are also emissions points

subject to the proposed rule. The

proposed standards are based on HON

provisions. A source must (1) monitor

monthly for leaks in the cooling water

for 6 months and quarterly thereafter,

and (2) repair leaks and test to

demonstrate that the leak has been

repaired.

2. Alternative Pollution Prevention

Standard

For existing sources, the proposed

rule also includes a pollution

prevention (P2) alternative standard that

meets the requirements of the MACT

standards, and can be implemented in

lieu of the requirements described

above. The P2 alternative standard

provides a way for facilities to comply

with the MACT standards by reducing

overall consumption of HAP from their

processes. The two options that were

developed are described in Table 2 and

are discussed below. This alternative

does not apply to HAP that are used as

reactants (below the stoichiometric

amount needed to produce the product)

or to HAP that are generated in the

process.

TABLE 2.—ALTERNATIVE P2

STANDARD

Option Description of P2 option

1 ............. Demonstrate an 85% reduction in

the kg consumption/kg production factor from a baseline year

of 1987.

2 ............. Demonstrate a 50% reduction in

the kg consumption/kg production factor and additional reduction from add-on control equivalent to yield 85% overall reduction in kg consumption/kg

production.

In the first option, an owner or

operator can satisfy the MACT

requirements for all process vents,

storage tanks, equipment leaks,

wastewater, bag dumps, and heat

exchange systems associated with an

existing process by demonstrating that

the production-indexed consumption of

HAP has decreased by 85 percent from

a baseline set at the first 12-month

period for which data are available but

no earlier than the 1987 calendar year.

(1987 was the first year industrial

facilities had to report their estimated

toxic releases to the EPA under the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986). Emissions

from product dryers are excluded from

the P2 option because reductions in

consumption would not affect product

emissions. The production-indexed

consumption factor is expressed as kg

HAP consumed per kg product

produced (kg consumed/kg produced

factor). The numerator in the kg

consumed/kg produced factor is the

total consumption of material, which

describes all the different areas where

material can be consumed, either

through losses to the environment,

consumption in the process as a

reactant, or otherwise destroyed.

Consumption, rather than emissions, is

tracked because it can be used as a true

measure of pollution prevention; any

decrease in consumption for the same

unit of product generated must involve

some type of increase in process

efficiency, including reduction of waste,

increased product yield, and in-process

recycling. Because HAP are used

generally as raw materials and solvents

in this industry, reductions in

consumption can be generally

associated with reductions in emissions

to air, water, or solid waste.

The second option also uses the

production-indexed consumption factor

and is also applied to existing processes.

It encourages and allows an owner or

operator to supplement reductions

achieved with P2 with add-on controls.

The EPA believes that such an option

will provide greater flexibility and cost

efficiency to the operators who already

may have some add-on controls. An

owner or operator would be required to

demonstrate reductions in the kg

consumed/kg produced factor of 50

percent via P2 measures, and actual

mass emission reductions equivalent to

35 percent of the kg consumed/kg

produced factor would be required

using add-on controls. Thus, the total

reduction required by option 2 would be

equivalent to or greater than an 85

percent reduction in the kg consumed/

kg produced factor, the same as in

option 1.

F. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions

1. Proposed Standards

a. Process Vents. To determine

compliance with the percent reduction

requirements for gaseous HAP and HCl

emissions from PAI process vents, the

owner or operator would be required to

quantify the uncontrolled and

controlled gaseous emissions from all

process vents to demonstrate the

appropriate overall reduction

requirements. For process vents

controlled by a device with an inlet of

less than 10 tons/yr of HAP, the owner

or operator can either test or use

calculational methodologies to

determine the uncontrolled and

controlled emission rates from

individual process vents. For process

vents controlled by a device with an

inlet of 10 tons/yr or more of HAP,

performance tests would be required to

determine the reduction efficiency of

each device. Because of their cyclic

nature, batch operations tend to have

variable emissions. Therefore,

performance test provisions were

structured to account for the peak-case

emissions. Continuous processes tend to

have more consistent emissions, but for

simplicity, the same performance test

provisions are applied to controls for

continuous processes. This approach

essentially considers emissions from
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60575

continuous processes to be peak-case at

all times. Control devices that have

previously been tested under conditions

required by this standard and

condensers are exempt from

performance testing.

b. Storage Tanks. For demonstrating

compliance with various requirements,

the proposed rule allows the owner or

operator to either conduct performance

tests or to document compliance using

engineering calculations. Appropriate

compliance and monitoring provisions

are included in the regulation.

c. Wastewater. For demonstrating

compliance with the various

requirements, owners and operators

have a choice of using a specified

design, conducting performance tests, or

documenting engineering calculations.

Appropriate inspection, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping

requirements are included in the

regulation.

d. Equipment Leaks. To determine

compliance with the standard for

equipment leaks, facilities would have

to demonstrate that an LDAR program

meeting the requirements of the

modified subpart H is in use.

e. Bag Dumps and Product Dryers. To

demonstrate compliance with the

particulate HAP emission limit of 0.01

gr/dscf, the owner or operator would be

required to conduct a performance test.

2. Pollution Prevention Alternative

Standard

Initial demonstration of compliance

with the P2 alternative standard would

be accomplished by documenting yearly

quantities of HAP raw materials and

products using available records,

including standard purchasing and

accounting records, and calculating the

kg consumed/kg produced values.

Procedures are also specified to

demonstrate that the required

reductions are achieved by the control

devices used to meet option 2.

G. Monitoring Requirements

1. MACT Emission Standards

Monitoring would be required by the

proposed standards to determine

whether a source is in compliance on an

ongoing basis. This monitoring is done

either by (1) continuously measuring

emission reductions directly or (2)

continuously measuring a site-specific

operating parameter, the value of which

is established by the owner or operator

during the initial compliance

determination. The operating parameter

value is defined as the minimum or

maximum value established for a

control device or process parameter

that, if achieved on a daily average by

itself or in combination with one or

more other operating parameter values,

determines that the owner or operator is

complying with the applicable emission

standards. Except for the bag leak

detectors, these parameters are required

to be monitored at 15-minute intervals

throughout the operation of the control

device. For a device controlling streams

that, in aggregate, contain less than 1

ton/yr of HAP, only a site-specific

periodic verification that the device is

operating as designed is required to

demonstrate continuous compliance.

Owners and operators must determine

the most appropriate method of

verification and propose this method to

the Agency for approval in the

Precompliance Report, which is due 1

year prior to the compliance date of the

standard.

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator must install a bag

leak detection system for each fabric

filter used to control particulate HAP

emissions from bag dumps or product

dryers. The bag leak detection system is

required because opacity is not a good

indicator of performance at the low,

controlled particulate levels

characteristic of these sources. The bag

leak detection system would be

equipped with an audible alarm that

automatically sounds when an increase

in particulate emissions above a

predetermined level is detected. The

proposed rule requires that the monitor

provide an output of relative or absolute

particulate emissions. Such a device

would serve as an indicator of the

performance of the fabric filter and

would provide an indication of when

maintenance of the fabric filter is

needed. An alarm by itself does not

indicate noncompliance with the

particulate HAP limit, but would

indicate an increase in PM emissions

and trigger an inspection of the fabric

filter to determine the cause of the

alarm. The owner or operator would

initiate corrective actions according to

procedures submitted with their

Notification of Compliance Status

report. The owner or operator would be

considered in violation of the

particulate HAP standard upon failure

to initiate corrective actions within 1

hour of the alarm. If the alarm is

activated for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time during the 6-month

reporting period, the EPA proposes that

the owner or opertor develop and

implement a written quality

improvement plan (QIP) consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.

2. Alternative Standard

An owner or operator electing to use

the P2 alternative can demonstrate

ongoing compliance by calculating the

rolling average of the kg consumed/kg

produced factor for each applicable

process or portions of the process. For

continuous processes, the rolling

average is calculated every 30 days, and

for batch processes, the rolling average

is calculated every 10 batches. In both

cases, the rolling average is based on

data from the previous 12 months. In

addition, an owner or operator electing

to use P2 Option 2 would have to

monitor the emission reduction

obtained through the use of traditional

controls using the methods described

above.

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

The owner or operator of any PAI

production facility subject to these

standards would be required to fulfill all

reporting requirements outlined in the

General Provisions of subpart A to 40

CFR part 63. A table included in the

proposed rule designates which sections

of subpart A apply to the proposed rule.

Specific recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for each type of emission

point are also included in the proposed

rule.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

The emission reductions that would

be required by this regulation could be

met using one or more of several

different techniques. Impacts were

estimated for control scenarios based on

traditional control techniques that were

judged to be the most feasible for

meeting the requirements of the

proposed standards from a technical

and cost standpoint. Energy, cost, and

economic impacts of the P2 alternative

would be equivalent to or lower than

the estimated impacts for traditional

controls because it is likely that an

owner or operator would elect to

implement only those P2 techniques

that have lower impacts than traditional

controls.

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

These NESHAP would affect PAI

production facilities that are major

sources in and of themselves, or

constitute a portion of a major source.

There are estimated to be approximately

329 existing facilities manufacturing

PAI’s, 78 of which were estimated to be

major sources for the purpose of

developing these standards and

calculating impacts. The rate of growth

for the PAI production industry is
60576 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

estimated to be 2 percent per year for

the next 5 years.

B. Air Impacts

The proposed standards would reduce

HAP emissions from existing sources by

5,150 Mg/yr (5,680 tons/yr) from the

baseline level, a reduction of 76 percent

from baseline, and 93 percent from

uncontrolled. These reductions would

also occur if facilities elect to

implement the alternative pollution

prevention standard. In addition to

reducing HAP emissions, VOC will also

be reduced. This reduction includes

VOC that are HAP and other VOC that

are not HAP. Volatile organic

compounds are precursors in the

atmospheric reaction with oxides of

nitrogen that generates tropospheric

ozone. The amount of VOC reduction

(beyond the HAP portion of the VOC)

due to implementation of the PAI

standards cannot be quantified.

C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

With the assumption that overheads

from steam stripping will be recoverable

as material or fuel, no solid waste is

expected to be generated from steam

stripping wastewater streams.

Additionally, no solid waste is expected

to be generated from controls of other

emission points.

The proposed standards would

increase wastewater generated from

water scrubbers used to control HCl

emissions by an estimated 10.8 million

liters per year (2.9 million gallons per

year). The volume of wastewater

generated would also increase at plants

that choose a water scrubber to control

certain water soluble organic HAP;

however, the increase is expected to be

minimal because the use of water

scrubbers for this purpose is expected to

be uncommon.

D. Energy Impacts

The proposed standards would

require an additional energy usage of

4,880 × 109 British thermal units per

year (Btu/yr).

E. Cost Impacts

The total control cost includes the

capital cost to install control devices

(including floating roofs), the costs

involved in operating control devices

(energy and operating and maintenance

costs), costs associated with monitoring

control devices to ensure compliance,

costs associated with implementing

work practices, and the cost savings

generated by reducing the loss of

valuable product in the form of

emissions. Monitoring costs include the

cost to purchase and operate monitoring

devices, as well as reporting and

recordkeeping costs required to

demonstrate compliance. Average cost

effectiveness, $/Mg of HAP removed, is

also presented as part of cost impacts

and is determined by dividing the

annual cost by the annual emission

reduction.

The estimated total capital costs for

existing and new sources would be

$70.3 million and $10.4 million,

respectively (June 1995 dollars). The

total annual costs for control at existing

and new sources are estimated to be

approximately $39.0 million and $5.73

million, respectively (June 1995

dollars). The average cost effectiveness

of the standards is estimated to be about

$7,600/Mg for existing sources and

$7,700/Mg for new sources. The EPA

estimates that industry’s nationwide

annual cost burden will average $0.37

million for monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements over the first

3 years following promulgation.

It is expected that the actual

compliance cost impacts of the

proposed rule would be less than

described above because of the potential

to use common control devices, upgrade

existing control devices, use other less

expensive control technologies,

implement pollution prevention

technologies, or use emissions

averaging. Since the effect of such

practices is highly site-specific and data

were unavailable to estimate how often

the lower cost compliance practices

could be utilized, it is not possible to

quantify the amount by which actual

compliance costs would be reduced.

The EPA believes that the overall

control costs and the monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping costs will

be substantially reduced for the

facilities opting to comply via the P2

option.

F. Economic Impacts

The control costs imposed on

producers in the PAI production

industry will increase their cost of

production. The effects of the changes

in production costs are evaluated in the

‘‘Economic Impact Analysis of the

Proposed NESHAP for the Production of

Pesticide Active Ingredients.’’ The

resulting increase in production costs

will increase the market price by less

than 1 percent and decrease market

output by less than 1 percent. In

addition, the regulation’s impact on

foreign competition is relatively small.

Social cost incorporates the changes in

welfare to consumers, unaffected

producers, and foreign producers and

consumers to the cost of the regulation.

These costs were determined to be

negligible for the PAI production

industry; therefore, the total social cost

is estimated to be equal to the total

control cost. No plant closures are

expected from compliance with this set

of alternatives.

VI. Emissions Averaging

The proposed rule includes

provisions that would allow emissions

averaging among process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater within an

existing affected source. New affected

sources are not allowed to use emissions

averaging. Under emissions averaging, a

system of ‘‘credits’’ and ‘‘debits’’ is used

to determine whether an affected source

is achieving the required emissions

reductions. The new sources have

historically been held to a stricter

standard than existing sources, because

it is most cost-effective to integrate

state-of-the-art controls into equipment

design and to install the technology

during the construction of new sources.

One reason for allowing averaging is to

permit existing sources flexibility to

achieve compliance at diverse points

with varying degrees of control already

in place in the most economically and

technically reasonable fashion. This

concern does not apply to new sources

because they can and should be

designed and constructed with

compliance in mind.

VII. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes

comments from interested persons on

any aspect of the proposed rule, and on

any statement in the preamble or the

referenced supporting documents. The

proposed rule was developed on the

basis of available information. The

Administrator is specifically requesting

factual information that may support

either the approach taken in the

proposed standards or an alternate

approach. To receive proper

consideration, documentation or data

should be provided. This section

requests comments on specific issues

identified during the development of

the standard.

The EPA is requesting comment on

the addition of other PAI’s to this source

category. The original source category

contained 10 agricultural chemicals

(i.e., PAI’s); during information

gathering for this proposed standard,

other PAI’s with similar processes,

emissions, and control equipment were

identified and added to the source

category.

The EPA is requesting comments on

the clarity of the approach used to

identify PAI processes subject to the

standards. Under FIFRA, all facilities

producing PAI’s (and other pesticide

products) are required to be registered.

Further, all of these registered pesticide-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60577

producing establishments are required

to report, on EPA form 3540–16, the

amount of each PAI that they produced

in the previous year and an estimate of

the amount to be produced in the

current year. The facilities also must

classify each PAI in one of 18 product

classification categories. Under today’s

proposed rule, PAI processes subject to

the standards are those that are used in

the production of insecticide, herbicide,

or fungicide products. For the purposes

of the proposed rule, PAI processes that

satisfy this definition are those that are

classified as an insecticide, insecticidefungicide, fungicide, herbicide,

herbicide-fungicide, plant regulator,

defoliant, desiccant, or multi-use active

ingredient on form 3540–16. The EPA

also evaluated and rejected other

approaches for identifying the processes

that would be subject to the standards.

One approach would be to list each

subject PAI process. This approach was

rejected because new products are

always being developed and existing

products are discontinued so that a list

would soon be out of date. Another

option would be to cover only registered

PAI’s. Drawbacks of this option are that

PAI’s produced only for export need not

be registered, the ongoing reregistration

process is likely to result in the

cancellation of many currently

registered PAI’s in the next few years,

and the registration process does not

classify the PAI as an insecticide,

herbicide, or fungicide. The Agency

requests comments on the benefits and

drawbacks of these and any other

approaches to identify PAI processes

subject to the standards.

The EPA is requesting particulate

emissions data from bag dumps and

product dryers in the PAI production

industry. The proposed standard for

particulates for bag dumps and product

dryers was based on information for a

product dryer from a single facility; this

was the only surveyed facility that dried

a PAI that is also a HAP. Other facilities

that manufacture PAI’s that have PM

HAP emissions from bag dumps or

product dryers may submit available

test data or engineering estimates of the

emissions, along with any available

information about the design and

operation of the control device.

The EPA is requesting information

and data on equipment leak emissions

in the PAI production industry. During

the development of this proposed

regulation, various industry

representatives commented that (1)

SOCMI emission factors used to

estimate emissions from equipment

leaks overestimate the actual emissions,

(2) the proposed equipment leak

requirements (HON, subpart H of this

part) are too stringent, i.e., the frequent

monitoring requirements associated

with the HON are burdensome,

especially because industry believes

equipment components are wellcontrolled, and (3) the requirements in

the Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) are

possible alternatives to the HON

requirements for equipment leak

standards. To support their comments,

industry has submitted a summary of

test results to EPA to demonstrate that

the industry is already well-controlled

with respect to equipment leaks. The

EPA has reviewed these data and

believes that the data are insufficient to

support the industry position. The EPA

is requesting additional information and

test data [screening data] on this issue.

These data should be collected in

accordance with accepted EPA protocol

(Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission

Estimates, EPA Document No. EPA–

453/R–95–017).

The EPA is soliciting comments on

several aspects of performance testing

and monitoring. The rule currently

requires performance testing to

document efficiencies for control

devices that are used to reduce

uncontrolled emissions of 10 tons per

year or more. The rule currently

requires that the performance test be

conducted under ‘‘peak-case’’

conditions and provides for three

options—absolute, representative, and

hypothetical peak-case. The EPA is

soliciting comments on appropriate test

conditions to be defined for different

types of control devices, especially

scrubbers and carbon adsorbers.

The proposed rule provides for

parametric monitoring to comply with

the standard and includes specific

operating parameters to be monitored.

The EPA is soliciting comments on the

use of alternative parameters without

the requirement of prior notification in

the Precompliance report. Parameters

other than those specified in the rule

that could be used to demonstrate

compliance include: (1) For condensers,

coolant temperature and flow (only with

emissions testing), (2) for scrubbers,

measurement of pressure drop, scrubber

fluid composition, or pH, and (3) for

carbon adsorbers, adsorption cycle and

regeneration frequency, bed

temperature, regeneration stream flow,

periodic test for bed poisoning, and

periodic vent testing and/or

predetermined scheduled replacement.

The EPA is soliciting comment on the

adequacy of these parameters for

demonstrating continuous compliance

with the rule.

An issue raised by industry associated

with parametric monitoring is related to

the setting of a parameter based on an

initial compliance determination at

conditions which represent the upper

limit (with regard to achievable control)

of conditions that will be encountered

during the course of operations. The

concern is that the rule effectively

requires a control level that is greater

than the standard because the control

devices will presumably achieve higher

control on conditions that are below this

upper limit, which may occur

frequently in this industry because of

the predominance of batch processes.

The EPA has tried to resolve this issue

by allowing owners and operators to set

more than one parameter level for a

given control device for processes or

portions of processes not requiring

control levels as high as the peak-case

or upper limit. These parametric levels

are required to be defined in advance in

the Notification of compliance report. If

more than one level is set, owners and

operators must make a determination of

compliance with the standards based on

what processes or emission

characteristics are routed to the device

at the time in which a monitoring

reading is taken. Additionally, the

determination of an exceedance is based

on a maximum of 24 hours worth of

data, or 96 15-minute readings, per

process. Therefore, readings outside of

acceptable ranges can be averaged in

with readings that are within range and

effectively normalized. The EPA

believes that the approach taken offers

the industry needed flexibility while

preserving the assurance of continuous

compliance.

Currently, the Notification of

Compliance report is the compliance

‘‘blueprint’’ for implementation of the

standard. All information regarding

documentation of the facility’s

compliance status with regard to the

standard should be included in this

report. Process descriptions, emission

estimates, control device performance

documentation, and continuous

compliance demonstration strategies,

including monitoring, are to be

presented in the report. This report

could be incorporated by reference into

the facility’s title V permit. If a change

occurred at the facility which required

the submittal of additional information,

or if the plant chose to revise

procedures that had been previously

documented in the notification, this

information would be submitted in

quarterly reports, thus ensuring that the

notification and associated reports

would always contain the most current

compliance strategy for the facility.

Only changes requiring site-specific

approval, such as the use of a

monitoring parameter that was not
60578 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

specifically identified in the standard,

would trigger some significant review

action under title V. This would allow

the facility enough flexibility to change

processes, operating, and compliance

procedures as necessary without prior

approval, if the changes were

straightforward, and would assure that

the compliance plan for the facility

would always be current. The EPA is

also soliciting comments on the

incorporation by reference of the

Notification of Compliance report into

the title V permit, and comments on the

types of changes that should trigger

review actions under title V.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to discuss the proposed

standard in accordance with section

307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to

make oral presentation on the proposed

standards for PAI production should

contact EPA at the address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

Oral presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement

before, during, or within 30 days after

the hearing. Written statements should

be addressed to the Air Docket Section

address given in the ADDRESSES section

of this preamble and should refer to

Docket No. A–95–20.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and written statements will be available

for public inspection and copying

during normal working hours at EPA’s

Air Docket Section in Washington, DC

(see ADDRESSES section of this

preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by

EPA in the development of this

proposed rulemaking. The principal

purposes of the docket are:

1. To allow interested parties to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can intelligently and

effectively participate in the rulemaking

process; and

2. To serve as the record in case of

judicial review (except for interagency

review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)]).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of this Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, the OMB has notified the

EPA that it considers this a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under criterion four

of the Executive Order. The EPA has

submitted this action for OMB review.

Changes made in response to

suggestions or recommendations from

the OMB will be documented and

included in the public record.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, EPA has involved State

governments in the development of this

rule. These governments will implement

the rule and collect permit fees to offset

the resource burden of implementing

the rule. Representatives of four State

governments are members of the MACT

partnership group. This partnership

group was consulted throughout the

development of this proposed

regulation. Comments from the

partnership members were carefully

considered. In addition, all States are

encouraged to comment on this

proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

final rulemaking.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information

Collection Request (ICR) document has

been prepared by EPA (ICR No.

1807.01), and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137); U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 401

M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460, or

by calling (202) 260–2740. The public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to average

1,360 hours per respondent for the first

year and 990 hours for each of the

second and third years, including time

for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. An Agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after November

10, 1997, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by December 10, 1997. The

final rule will respond to any OMB or

public comments on the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

F. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. In a screening

of potential impacts on small entities,

the EPA found that there are three small

companies operating in the PAI

production industry. The majority of

facilities are owned by large chemical

manufacturers having greater than 500

employees. In all instances, the average

total annual cost for affected firms is
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60579

less than 1 percent of company-wide

revenues. The screening analysis for this

rule is detailed in the Economic Impact

Analysis (see Docket No. A–95–20).

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

Tribal governments, and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including Tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed standards do not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of, in the aggregate, $100

million or more to either State, local or

Tribal governments, or to the private

sector, nor do the standards

significantly or uniquely impact small

governments, because they contain no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, the requirements

of the UMRA do not apply to this

proposed rule.

H. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. The

Administrator will welcome comments

on all aspects of the proposed

regulation, including health, economic

and technical issues, and on the

proposed requirements for testing.

This regulation will be reviewed 8

years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment

of such factors as evaluation of the

residual health and environmental risks,

any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 27, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. It is proposed that part 63 be

amended by adding subpart MMM to

read as follows:

Subpart MMM—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Pesticide Active Ingredient

Production

Sec.

63.1360 Applicability.

63.1361 Definitions.

63.1362 Standards.

63.1363 Compliance dates.

63.1364 Test methods and compliance

procedures.

63.1365 Monitoring and inspection

requirements.

63.1366 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.1367 Reporting requirements.

63.1368 Delegation of authority.

Table 1 to Subpart MMM—General

Provisions Applicability to Subpart

MMM

Table 2 to Subpart MMM—Proposed

Standards for PAI Production

Subpart MMM—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Pesticide Active Ingredient

Production

§ 63.1360 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to each affected source. Except as

specified in paragraph (d) of this

section, the affected source subject to

this subpart is the facility-wide

collection of process vents, storage

tanks, waste management units, heat

exchange systems, cooling towers,

equipment identified in § 63.149, and

equipment components (pumps,

compressors, agitators, pressure relief

devices, sampling connection systems,

open-ended valves or lines, valves,

connectors, and instrumentation

systems) in pesticide active ingredient

(PAI) manufacturing operations at a

major source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) emissions. Pesticide active

ingredient manufacturing operations

also include the manufacturing of each

intermediate:

(1) That is integral to a PAI

production process; and

(2) For which 50 percent or more of

the annual production of the

intermediate is used in any onsite PAI

processes.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph

(d) of this section, a new source is

defined as a source meeting the criteria

of paragraph (b) (1), (2), or (3) of this

section.

(1) A plant site previously without

HAP emissions points that is part of a

major source on which construction of

PAI manufacturing operations

commenced after November 10, 1997;

(2) Additions to an existing plant

meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of

this section; or

(3) A reconstructed source that meets

the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2

and for which reconstruction

commenced after November 10, 1997.

(c) Table 1 of this subpart specifies

the provisions of subpart A of this part

that apply to an owner or operator of an

affected source subject to this subpart,

and clarifies specific provisions in

subpart A of this part as necessary for

this subpart.

(d) The provisions of this subpart do

not apply to:

(1) Research and development

facilities;

(2) Emission points in pesticide active

ingredient manufacturing operations

that meet the applicability requirements
60580 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

under subparts F, G, H, and I of this

part;

(3) Emission points in pesticide active

ingredient manufacturing operations

that meet the applicability criteria under

any other existing MACT standard; and

(4) The following emission points

listed:

(i) Stormwater from segregated

sewers;

(ii) Water from fire-fighting and

deluge systems, including testing of

such systems;

(iii) Spills;

(iv) Water from safety showers;

(v) Noncontact steam boiler

blowdown and condensate;

(vi) Laundry water;

(vii) Vessels and equipment storing

and/or handling material that contain

no organic HAP and/or organic HAP as

impurities only; and

(viii) Equipment that is intended to

operate in organic HAP service for less

than 300 hours during the calendar year.

(e) An owner or operator shall follow

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

provisions specified in paragraphs (e)(1)

and (2) of this section.

(1) For batch processes, the provisions

of this subpart shall apply during

startup and shutdown, and periods of

malfunction shall be regulated

according to § 63.6 of subpart A of this

part.

(2) For continuous processes, startup,

shutdown, and malfunction shall be

regulated according to § 63.6 of subpart

A of this part.

(f) An owner or operator shall follow

the procedures specified in paragraphs

(f)(1) through (3) of this section to

determine whether a storage tank is part

of the PAI manufacturing operations. If

the storage tank is determined to be part

of the PAI manufacturing operations,

and the PAI manufacturing operations

are located at a major source of HAP

emissions, then the storage tank is part

of the affected source to which this

subpart applies.

(1) If a storage tank is already subject

to another subpart of 40 CFR part 63 on

November 10, 1997, said storage tank

shall belong to the process unit or

manufacturing process subject to the

other standard.

(2) The storage tank is part of the PAI

manufacturing operations if either the

input to the tank from PAI

manufacturing processes, collectively, is

greater than or equal to the input from

all other sources or the output from the

tank to PAI manufacturing processes,

collectively, is greater than or equal to

the output to all other sources. If the use

varies from year to year, then the use for

purposes of this subpart shall be based

on the utilization that occurred during

the year preceding November 10, 1997.

This determination shall be reported as

part of an operating permit application

or as otherwise specified by the

permitting authority.

(3) Where a storage tank is located in

a tank farm (including a marine tank

farm), the provisions in paragraphs

(f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section shall be

used to determine if the storage tank is

considered part of the PAI

manufacturing operations.

(i) The storage tank is not part of the

PAI manufacturing operations if all of

the PAI manufacturing processes that

utilize the tank have an intervening

storage tank. With respect to a PAI

manufacturing process, an intervening

storage tank means a storage tank

connected by hard-piping to the PAI

manufacturing process and to the

storage tank in the tank farm so that

product or raw material entering or

leaving the PAI manufacturing process

flows into (or from) the intervening

storage tank and does not flow directly

into (or from) the storage tank in the

tank farm.

(ii) For storage tanks that do not meet

the provisions of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of

this section, the provisions in paragraph

(f)(2) of this section shall be used to

determine if the storage tank is part of

the PAI manufacturing operations.

(5) If the storage tank begins receiving

material from (or sending material to)

other manufacturing operations, or

ceasing to receive material from (or send

material to) PAI manufacturing

operations, or if the applicability of this

subpart has been determined according

to the provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of

this section and there is a significant

change in the use of the storage tank, the

owner or operator shall reevaluate the

applicability of this subpart to the

storage tank.

(g) If a facility adds PAI

manufacturing operations at a plant site,

the addition shall be subject to the

requirements for a new source in this

subpart if the addition meets the criteria

in paragraph (g)(1) and either (g)(2) or

(3) of this section.

(1) The addition meets the definition

of construction in § 63.2 of subpart A of

this part and construction commenced

after November 10, 1997; and

(2) The addition has the potential to

emit 10 tons/yr or more of any HAP or

25 tons/yr or more of any combination

of HAP, unless the Administrator

establishes a lesser quantity at a plant

that currently is an affected source; or

(3) The addition is at a plant site that

does not currently produce PAI’s and

the plant site meets, or after the addition

is constructed will meet, the definition

of a major source in § 63.2 of subpart A

of this part.

(h) An owner or operator may elect to

include any of the intermediates

manufacturing operations that are

identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of

this section in the PAI manufacturing

operations subject to this subpart:

(1) The manufacturing of integral

intermediates for which less than 50

percent of the intermediate is used in

onsite manufacturing of PAI’s.

(2) The manufacturing of isolated

intermediates.

§ 63.1361 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Act, in subpart A of this

part, or in this section. If the same term

is defined in subpart A of this part and

in this section, it shall have the meaning

given in this section for the purposes of

this subpart MMM.

Air pollution control device means

equipment installed on a process vent or

storage tank or wastewater treatment

exhaust stack or stacks that reduces the

mass of HAP emitted to the air.

Examples include incinerators, carbon

adsorption units, condensers, and gas

absorbers. Process condensers are not

considered air pollution control devices.

Batch cycle refers to manufacturing a

PAI or integral intermediate from start

to finish in a batch unit operation.

Batch emission episode means a

discrete venting episode that may be

associated with a single unit operation.

A unit operation may have more than

one batch emission episode. For

example, a displacement of vapor

resulting from the charging of a vessel

with HAP will result in a discrete

emission episode that will last through

the duration of the charge and will have

an average flowrate equal to the rate of

the charge. If the vessel is then heated,

there will also be another discrete

emission episode resulting from the

expulsion of expanded vessel vapor

space. Both emission episodes may

occur in the same vessel or unit

operation. There are possibly other

emission episodes that may occur from

the vessel or other process equipment,

depending on process operations.

Batch operation or Batch process

means a noncontinuous operation

involving intermittent or discontinuous

feed into PAI or integral intermediate

manufacturing equipment, and, in

general, involves the emptying of the

equipment after the batch operation

ceases and prior to beginning a new

operation. Addition of raw material and

withdrawal of product do not occur

simultaneously in a batch operation.

Closed-vent system means a system

that is not open to the atmosphere and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60581

is composed of piping, ductwork,

connections, and, if necessary, flow

inducing devices that transport gas or

vapor from an emission point to a

control device.

Combustion device means an

individual unit of equipment, such as a

flare, incinerator, process heater, or

boiler, used for the combustion of

organic HAP vapors.

Consumption means the makeup

quantity of HAP materials entering a

process that are not used as reactant.

The quantity of material used as

reactant is the theoretical amount

needed assuming a 100 percent

stoichiometric conversion. Makeup is

the net amount of material that must be

added to the process to replenish losses.

Container, as used in the wastewater

provisions, means any portable waste

management unit that has a capacity

greater than or equal to 0.1 m3 (3.5 ft3)

in which a material is stored,

transported, treated, or otherwise

handled. Examples of containers are

drums, hoses, barrels, tank trucks,

barges, dumpsters, tank cars, dump

trucks, and ships.

Continuous process means a process

where the inputs and outputs flow

continuously throughout the duration of

the process. Continuous processes are

typically steady state.

Continuous seal means a seal that

forms a continuous closure that

completely covers the space between

the wall of the storage tank and the edge

of the floating roof. A continuous seal

may be a vapor-mounted, liquidmounted, or metallic shoe seal.

Controlled emissions means the

quantity of HAP components discharged

to the atmosphere from the air pollution

control device.

Cover, as used in the wastewater

provisions, means a device or system

which is placed on or over a waste

management unit containing wastewater

or residuals so that the entire surface

area is enclosed and sealed to minimize

air emissions. A cover may have

openings necessary for operation,

inspection, and maintenance of the

waste management unit such as access

hatches, sampling ports, and gauge

wells provided that each opening is

closed and sealed when not in use.

Examples of covers include a fixed roof

installed on a wastewater tank, a lid

installed on a container, and an airsupported enclosure installed over a

waste management unit.

External floating roof means a

pontoon-type or double-deck type cover

that rests on the liquid surface in a

storage tank or waste management unit

with no fixed roof.

FIFRA means the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Fill or filling means the introduction

of organic HAP into a storage tank or the

introduction of a wastewater stream or

residual into a waste management unit,

but not necessarily to complete

capacity.

Fixed roof means a cover that is

mounted on a waste management unit

or storage tank in a stationary manner

and that does not move with

fluctuations in liquid level.

Floating roof means a cover consisting

of a double deck, pontoon single deck,

internal floating cover or covered

floating roof, which rests upon and is

supported by the liquid being

contained, and is equipped with a

closure seal or seals to close the space

between the roof edge and waste

management unit or storage tank wall.

Group 1 process vent means any

process vent from a process at an

existing or new affected source for

which the uncontrolled emissions from

the sum of all process vents are greater

than or equal to 150 kg/yr (330 lb/yr).

Group 2 process vent means any

process vent that does not meet the

definition of a Group 1 process vent.

Group 1 storage tank means a storage

tank at an existing affected source that

has uncontrolled emissions greater than

or equal to 110 kg/yr (240 lb/yr) and

capacity equal to or greater than 37 m3

(10,000 gal), or a storage tank at a new

affected source that has uncontrolled

emissions greater than or equal to 0.45

kg/yr (1 lb/yr) and capacity equal to or

greater than 26 m3 (7,000 gal).

Group 2 storage tank means a storage

tank that does not meet the definition of

a Group 1 storage tank.

Group 1 wastewater stream means

wastewater at an existing or new source

that meets the criteria for Group 1 status

in § 63.132(c) of subpart G of this part

for Table 9 compounds in Table 9 of

subpart G of this part (as defined in

§ 63.111 of subpart G of this part).

Group 2 wastewater stream means any

wastewater stream that does not meet

the definition of a Group 1 wastewater

stream.

Hard-piping means tubing that is

manufactured and properly installed

using good engineering judgment and

standards, such as ANSI B31–3.

Individual drain system means the

stationary system used to convey

wastewater streams or residuals to a

waste management unit. The term

includes hard piping, all process drains

and junction boxes, together with their

associated sewer lines and other

junction boxes, manholes, sumps, and

lift stations, conveying wastewater

streams or residuals. A segregated

stormwater sewer system, which is a

drain and collection system designed

and operated for the sole purpose of

collecting rainfall-runoff at a facility,

and which is segregated from all other

individual drain systems, is excluded

from this definition.

Integral intermediate process means a

process manufacturing an intermediate

that is used in on-site production of any

PAI’s and is not removed to storage

before used to produce the PAI(s).

Intermediate means a compound

produced in a chemical reaction that is

further processed or modified in one or

more additional chemical reactions to

produce a PAI.

Internal floating roof means a cover

that rests or floats on the liquid surface

(but not necessarily in complete contact

with it) inside a storage tank or waste

management unit that has a

permanently affixed roof.

Isolated Intermediate means any

intermediate that is removed from the

manufacturing process for temporary or

permanent storage or transferred to

shipping containers.

Junction box means a manhole or

access point to a wastewater sewer line

or a lift station.

Liquid-mounted seal means a foam

liquid-filled seal mounted in contact

with the liquid between the wall of the

storage tank or waste management unit

and the floating roof. The seal is

mounted continuously around the tank

or unit.

Metallic shoe seal or mechanical shoe

seal means metal sheets that are held

vertically against the wall of the storage

tank by springs, weighted levers, or

other mechanisms and is connected to

the floating roof by braces or other

means. A flexible coated fabric

(envelope) spans the annular space

between the metal sheet and the floating

roof.

Pesticide active ingredient

manufacturing operations means all of

the processing equipment; storage tanks;

waste management units; components

such as pumps, compressors, agitators,

pressure relief devices, sampling

connection systems, open-ended valves

or lines, valves, connectors, and

instrumentation systems; and associated

equipment such as heat exchange

systems that are located at a facility for

the purpose of manufacturing PAI’s.

Pesticide active ingredient or PAI

means any material that is an active

ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA

section 2(a); that is used to produce an

insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end

use pesticide product; and that must be

labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part

156 for transfer, sale, or distribution.

These materials are typically described
60582 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

by North American Industrial

Classification System (NAICS) Codes

325199 and 32532 (i.e., previously

known as Standard Industrial

Classification System Codes 2869 and

2879). These materials are identified by

product classification codes 01, 21, 02,

04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 in block 19 on

EPA form 3540–16, the Pesticides

Report for Pesticide-Producing

Establishments.

Point of determination (POD) means

the point where a wastewater stream

exits the process, storage tank, or

equipment components. The POD may

be at the equipment or following the last

recovery device.

Note: The regulation in this subpart allows

determination of the characteristics of a

wastewater stream (1) at the point of

determination or (2) downstream of the point

of determination if corrections are made for

changes in flow rate and annual average

concentration of Table 8 or Table 9

compounds as determined in § 63.144 of

subpart G of this part. Such changes include

losses by air emissions; reduction of annual

average concentration or changes in flow rate

by mixing with other water or wastewater

streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual

average concentration by treating or

otherwise handling the wastewater stream to

remove or destroy HAP.

Process means a logical grouping of

processing equipment which

collectively function to produce a PAI.

For the purpose of this subpart, process

includes all or a combination of

reaction, recovery, separation,

purification, or other activity, operation,

or manufacture which are used to

produce a PAI, including each integral

intermediate. The physical boundaries

of a process are flexible, providing a

process ends with an active ingredient.

Solvent recovery operations are

considered part of a process;

formulation of pesticide products is not

considered part of the process.

Process condenser means a condenser

whose primary purpose is to recover

material as an integral part of a unit

operation. The condenser must support

a vapor-to-liquid phase change for

periods of source equipment operation

that are above the boiling or bubble

point of substance(s). Examples of

process condensers include distillation

condensers, reflux condensers, process

condensers in line prior to the vacuum

source, and process condensers used in

stripping or flashing operations.

Process tank means a tank that is

physically located within the bounds of

a process that is used to collect material

discharged from a feedstock storage tank

or unit operation within the process and

transfer this material to another unit

operation within the process or a

product storage tank. Surge control

vessels and bottoms receivers that fit

these conditions are considered process

tanks.

Process vent means a vent from a unit

operation through which a HAPcontaining gas stream is, or has the

potential to be, released to the

atmosphere. Examples of process vents

include, but are not limited to, vents on

condensers used for product recovery,

bottom receivers, surge control vessels,

reactors, filters, centrifuges, process

tanks, and product dryers. Process vents

do not include vents on storage tanks

regulated under § 63.1362(c), vents on

wastewater emission sources regulated

under § 63.1362(d), pieces of equipment

regulated under § 63.1362(e), or bag

dumps.

Product dryer vent means a vent from

an atmospheric dryer through which a

gas stream containing gaseous organic

HAP, particulate matter HAP, or both is,

or has the potential to be, released to the

atmosphere. Gaseous organic HAP

emissions are considered to be process

vent emissions.

Production-indexed HAP

consumption factor (HAP factor) is the

result of dividing the annual

consumption of total HAP by the annual

production rate, per process.

Production-indexed VOC

consumption factor (VOC factor) is the

result of dividing the annual

consumption of total VOC by the annual

production rate, per process.

Publicly owned treatment works

(POTW) means any devices and systems

used in the storage, treatment, recycling,

and reclamation of municipal sewage or

industrial wastes of a liquid nature as

defined in section 212(2)(A) of the Clean

Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.

1292(2)(A)). A POTW includes the

treatment works, intercepting sewers,

outfall sewers, sewage collection

systems, pumping, power, and other

equipment. The POTW is defined at 40

CFR 403.3(0).

Reactor means a device or vessel in

which one or more chemicals or

reactants, other than air, are combined

or decomposed in such a way that their

molecular structures are altered and one

or more new organic compounds are

formed.

Recapture device means an individual

unit of equipment capable of and used

for the purpose of recovering chemicals,

but not normally for use, reuse, or sale.

For example, a recapture device may

recover chemicals primarily for

disposal. Recapture devices include, but

are not limited to, absorbers, carbon

adsorbers, and condensers.

Recovery device means an individual

unit of equipment capable of and

normally used for the purpose of

recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e.,

the recovered stream must have a net

positive heating value), use, reuse, or for

sale for fuel value, use, or reuse.

Examples of equipment that may be

recovery devices include absorbers,

carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water

separators, or organic-water separators

or organic removal devices such as

decanters, strippers, or thin-film

evaporation units. For purposes of the

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of this subpart,

recapture devices are considered

recovery devices.

Research and development facility

means research or laboratory operations

whose primary purpose is to conduct

research and development, where the

operations are under the close

supervision of technically trained

personnel, and is not engaged in the

manufacture of products for commercial

sale, except in a de minimis manner.

Residual means any liquid or solid

material containing Table 9 compounds

(as defined in § 63.111 of subpart G of

this part) that is removed from a

wastewater stream by a waste

management unit or treatment process

that does not destroy organics

(nondestructive unit). Examples of

residuals from nondestructive

wastewater management units are: the

organic layer and bottom residue

removed by a decanter or organic-water

separator and the overheads from a

steam stripper or air stripper. Examples

of materials which are not residuals are:

Silt; mud; leaves; bottoms from a steam

stripper or air stripper; and sludges, ash,

or other materials removed from

wastewater being treated by destructive

devices such as biological treatment

units and incinerators.

Sewer line means a lateral, trunk line,

branch line, or other conduit including,

but not limited to, grates, trenches, etc.,

used to convey wastewater streams or

residuals to a downstream waste

management unit.

Single-seal system means a floating

roof having one continuous seal that

completely covers the space between

the wall of the storage tank and the edge

of the floating roof. This seal may be a

vapor-mounted, liquid-mounted, or

metallic shoe seal.

Storage tank means a tank or other

vessel that is used to store organic

liquids that contain one or more HAP.

The following are not considered

storage tanks for the purposes of this

subpart:

(1) Vessels permanently attached to

motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars,

barges, or ships;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60583

(2) Pressure vessels designed to

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals

and without emissions to the

atmosphere;

(3) Vessels storing and/or handling

material that contains no organic HAP

and/or organic HAP only as impurities;

(4) Wastewater storage tanks; and

(5) Process tanks.

Surface impoundment means a waste

management unit which is a natural

topographic depression, manmade

excavation, or diked area formed

primarily of earthen materials (although

it may be lined with manmade

materials), which is designed to hold an

accumulation of liquid wastes or waste

containing free liquids. A surface

impoundment is used for the purpose of

treating, storing, or disposing of

wastewater or residuals, and is not an

injection well. Examples of surface

impoundments are equalization,

settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and

lagoons.

Treatment process means a specific

technique that removes or destroys the

organics in a wastewater or residual

stream such as a steam stripping unit,

thin-film evaporation unit, waste

incinerator, biological treatment unit, or

any other process applied to wastewater

streams or residuals to comply with

§ 63.138 of this subpart. Most treatment

processes are conducted in tanks.

Treatment processes are a subset of

waste management units.

Uncontrolled HAP emissions means a

gas stream containing HAP which has

exited the last recovery device, but

which has not yet been introduced into

an air pollution control device to reduce

the mass of HAP in the stream. If the

process vent is not routed to an air

pollution control device, uncontrolled

emissions are those HAP emissions

released to the atmosphere.

Unit operation means those

processing steps that occur within

distinct equipment that are used, among

other things, to prepare reactants,

facilitate reactions, separate and purify

products, and recycle materials.

Equipment used for these purposes

includes but is not limited to reactors,

distillation columns, extraction

columns, absorbers, decanters, dryers,

condensers, and filtration equipment.

Vapor-mounted seal means a

continuous seal that completely covers

the annular space between the wall, the

storage tank or waste management unit

and the edge of the floating roof and is

mounted such that there is a vapor

space between the stored liquid and the

bottom of the seal.

Volatile organic compounds are

defined in 40 CFR 51.100.

Wastewater means water that:

(1) Contains either:

(i) An annual average concentration of

compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of

this part (as defined in § 63.111 of

subpart G of this part) of at least 5

ppmw and has an average flow rate of

0.02 L/min or greater; or

(ii) An annual average concentration

of Table 9 compounds (as defined in

§ 63.111 of subpart G of this part) of at

least 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate; and

(2) Is discarded from PAI

manufacturing operations at a major

source.

(3) Wastewater is process wastewater

or maintenance wastewater.

Waste management unit means the

equipment, structures, and/or devices

used to convey, store, treat, or dispose

of wastewater streams or residuals.

Examples of waste management units

include wastewater tanks, surface

impoundments, individual drain

systems, and biological treatment units.

Examples of equipment that may be

waste management units include

containers, air flotation units, oil-water

separators or organic-water separators,

or organic removal devices such as

decanters, strippers, or thin-film

evaporation units. If such equipment is

used for recovery then it is part of a PAI

process and is not a waste management

unit.

Wastewater tank means a stationary

waste management unit that is designed

to contain an accumulation of

wastewater or residuals and is

constructed primarily of nonearthen

materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel,

plastic) which provide structural

support. Wastewater tanks used for flow

equalization are included in this

definition.

Water seal controls means a seal pot,

p-leg trap, or other type of trap filled

with water (e.g., flooded sewers that

maintain water levels adequate to

prevent air flow through the system)

that creates a water barrier between the

sewer line and the atmosphere. The

water level of the seal must be

maintained in the vertical leg of a drain

in order to be considered a water seal.

§ 63.1362 Standards.

(a) On and after the compliance dates

specified in § 63.1363 of this subpart,

each owner or operator of an affected

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall control HAP emissions to

the levels specified in Table 2 of this

subpart and paragraphs (b) through (g)

of this section.

(b) Process vents. (1) The owner or

operator of an existing source shall

comply with the requirements of

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.

The owner or operator of a new source

shall comply with the requirements of

paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section.

Compliance with this section shall be

demonstrated through the applicable

test methods and procedures in

§ 63.1364(c).

(2) For each process, the owner or

operator of an existing source shall

comply with the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or both

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this

section.

(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emission rate shall not exceed 0.15 Mg/

yr (330 lb/yr) from the sum of all

process vents within a process.

(ii) The owner or operator shall

comply with the requirements specified

in either paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of

this section.

(A) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from the sum of all process

vents within a process, excluding

process vents that meet the criteria for

98 percent control in paragraph

(b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, shall be

reduced by 90 weight percent or greater,

or

(B) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from one or more process

vents within a process shall be

controlled by combustion, recovery, or

recapture devices meeting an outlet

TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less.

Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions

from the sum of all other process vents

within the process shall be reduced by

90 weight percent or greater.

(iii) Uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from each process vent

meeting the requirements of paragraph

(b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section shall be

reduced by 98 weight percent or greater,

or the emissions shall be controlled by

combustion, recovery, or recapture

devices meeting an outlet TOC

concentration of 20 ppmv or less.

(A) Process vents having a flowrate

equal to or less than the flowrate

calculated when multiplying the

uncontrolled yearly HAP emissions, in

lb/yr, by 0.02 and subtracting 1,000

according to the following equation:

FR = 0.02*(HL)¥1,000

where:

FR = flowrate, scfm.

HL = yearly uncontrolled HAP

emissions, lb/yr.

(B) If the owner or operator can

demonstrate that a control device

installed on a process vent subject to the

requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)

of this section on or before November

10, 1997 was designed to reduce inlet

emissions of total organic HAP by

greater than or equal to 90 percent but

less than 98 percent, then the control

device is required to be operated to
60584 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

reduce inlet emissions of total organic

HAP by 90 percent or greater.

(3) For each process, the owner or

operator of an existing source shall

comply with the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(3) (i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl2

emissions, including HCl generated

from the combustion of halogenated

process vent emissions, from the sum of

all process vents within a process shall

not exceed 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).

(ii) HCl and Cl2 emissions, including

HCl generated from combustion of

halogenated process vent emissions,

from the sum of all process vents within

a process shall be reduced by 94 percent

or greater.

(4) For each process, the owner or

operator of a new source shall comply

with the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this

section.

(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions shall not exceed 0.15 Mg/yr

(330 lb/yr) from the sum of all process

vents within a process.

(ii) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from the sum of all process

vents within a process shall be reduced

by 98 weight percent or greater; or

(iii) The uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from one or more process

vents within a process shall be

controlled by combustion, recovery, or

recapture devices meeting an outlet

TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less.

The uncontrolled emissions from the

sum of all other process vents within

the process shall be reduced by 98

weight percent or greater.

(5) For each process, the owner or

operator of a new source shall comply

with the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this

section.

(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl2

emissions, including HCl generated

from combustion of halogenated process

vent emissions, from the sum of all

process vents within a process shall not

exceed 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr).

(ii) If HCl and Cl2 emissions,

including HCl generated from

combustion of halogenated process vent

emissions, from the sum of all process

vents within a process are greater than

or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr) and

less than 191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr), these

HCl and Cl2 emissions shall be reduced

by 94 percent.

(iii) If HCl and Cl2 emissions,

including HCl generated from

combustion of halogenated process vent

emissions, from the sum of all process

vents within a process are greater than

191 Mg/yr (211 tons/yr), these HCl and

Cl2 emissions shall be reduced by 99.9

percent or greater.

(c) Storage tanks. (1) The owner or

operator of a Group 1 storage tank with

a design capacity greater than or equal

to 75 m3 (20,000 gal) at an existing

affected source shall equip the affected

storage tank with a fixed roof and

internal floating roof, an external

floating roof, an external floating roof

converted to an internal floating roof, or

a closed vent system and control device

that meets the requirements of

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this

section.

(i) Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(1)(ii) of this section, the control

device shall be designed and operated to

reduce inlet emissions of organic HAP

by 95 percent or greater, as

demonstrated through the test methods

and procedures in § 63.1364(d).

(ii) If the owner or operator can

demonstrate that a control device

installed on a storage tank on or before

November 10, 1997 is designed to

reduce inlet emissions of organic HAP

by greater than 41 percent but less than

95 percent, then the control device is

required to be operated to reduce inlet

emissions of organic HAP by 41 percent

or greater, as demonstrated through the

test methods and procedures in

§ 63.1364(d).

(2) The owner or operator of a Group

1 storage tank with a design capacity

less than 75 m3 (20,000 gal) at an

existing affected source shall equip the

affected storage tank with a fixed roof

and internal floating roof, an external

floating roof, an external floating roof

converted to an internal floating roof, or

a closed vent system and control device

that is designed and operated to reduce

emissions of total organic HAP by 41

percent or greater, as demonstrated

through the test methods and

procedures in § 63.1364(d).

(3) The owner or operator of a Group

1 storage tank at a new affected source

shall equip the affected storage tank

with a closed vent system and control

device that is designed and operated to

reduce emissions by 98 weight percent

or to an outlet TOC concentration of 20

ppmv or less, and compliance shall be

demonstrated through the test methods

in § 63.1364(b) and the procedures in

§ 63.1364(d).

(d) Wastewater. The owner or

operator of each affected source shall

comply with the requirements of

§§ 63.131 through 63.149 of subpart G of

this part, with the differences noted in

paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this

section for the purposes of this subpart.

(1) When the determination of

equivalence criteria in § 63.102(b) is

referred to in §§ 63.132, 63.133, and

63.137, the provisions in § 63.6(g) shall

apply.

(2) When the storage tank

requirements contained in §§ 63.119

through 63.123 are referred to in

§§ 63.132 through 63.148, §§ 63.119

through 63.123 are applicable, with the

exception of the differences noted in

paragraphs (d)(2) (i) through (iv) of this

section.

(i) When the term ‘‘storage vessel’’ is

used in §§ 63.119 through 63.123, the

definition of the term ‘‘storage tank’’ in

§ 63.1361 shall apply for the purposes of

this subpart.

(ii) When December 31, 1992, is

referred to in § 63.119, November 10,

1997, shall apply for the purposes of

this subpart.

(iii) When April 22, 1994 is referred

to in § 63.119, [date of publication of the

final rule] shall apply for the purposes

of this subpart.

(iv) The compliance date for storage

tanks at affected sources subject to the

provisions of this section is specified in

§ 63.1363.

(3) To request approval to monitor

alternative parameters, as referred to in

§ 63.146(a), the owner or operator shall

comply with the procedures in § 63.8(h),

as referred to in § 63.1367(a)(2)(i),

instead of the procedures in § 63.151 (f)

or (g).

(4) When the Notification of

Compliance Status requirements

contained in § 63.152(b) are referred to

in §§ 63.146, the Notification of

Compliance Status requirements in

§ 63.1367(a)(1)(d) shall apply for the

purposes of this subpart.

(5) When the recordkeeping

requirements contained in § 63.152(f)

are referred to in § 63.147(d), the

recordkeeping requirements in

§ 63.1366(a) shall apply for the purposes

of this subpart.

(6) When the Periodic Report

requirements contained in § 63.152(c)

are referred to in §§ 63.146 and 63.147,

the Periodic Report requirements

contained in § 63.1367(b) shall apply for

the purposes of this subpart.

(7) The term ‘‘process wastewater’’ in

§§ 63.132 through 63.149 shall mean

‘‘wastewater’’ as defined in § 63.1361 for

the purposes of this subpart.

(8) The term ‘‘Group 1’’ in §§ 63.132

through 63.149 shall have the meaning

as defined in § 63.1361 for both new

sources and existing sources for the

purposes of this subpart.

(9) When the total load of Table 9

compounds in the sum of all process

wastewater from PAI manufacturing

operations at a new affected source is

2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) or more, the

owner or operator shall reduce, by

removal or destruction, the mass flow

rate of all compounds in Table 9 of

subpart G of this part in all wastewater
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60585

(process and maintenance wastewater)

by 99 percent or more. Alternatively, the

owner or operator may treat the

wastewater in a unit identified in and

complying with § 63.138(h) of subpart G

of this part. The removal/destruction

efficiency shall be determined by the

procedures specified in § 63.145(c) of

subpart G of this part, for

noncombustion processes, or § 63.145(d)

of subpart G of this part, for combustion

processes.

(10) The compliance date for the

affected source subject to the provisions

of this section is specified in § 63.1363.

(e) Equipment leaks. (1) Except as

provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this

section, the owner or operator of an

affected source shall comply with the

requirements of subpart H of this part to

control emissions from equipment leaks.

Compliance shall be demonstrated

through the test methods and

procedures in § 63.180 of subpart H of

this part.

(2) Standards for surge control vessels

and bottom receivers as described in

§ 63.170 of this part do not apply. Surge

control vessels and bottoms receivers

shall be considered to be process

equipment with process vents.

Emissions from these process vents

shall be controlled according to the

provisions of paragraph (c) of this

section.

(f) Bag dumps and product dryers.

The owner or operator shall reduce

particulate HAP emissions from bag

dumps and product dryers to a

concentration not to exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.

Gaseous organic HAP emissions from

product dryers shall be controlled in

accordance with the provisions for

process vent emissions in paragraph (b)

of this section.

(g) Heat exchange system

requirements. (1) Unless one or more of

the conditions specified in § 63.104(a)

(1) through (6) of subpart F of this part

are met, an owner or operator of an

affected source subject to this subpart

shall monitor each heat exchange

system that is used to cool process

equipment in PAI manufacturing

operations meeting the conditions of

§ 63.1360(a) according to the provisions

in either paragraph (g) (2) or (3) of this

section. Whenever a leak is detected, the

owner or operator shall comply with the

requirements in paragraph (g)(4) of this

section.

(2) An owner or operator who elects

to comply with the requirements of

paragraph (g)(1) of this section by

monitoring the cooling water for the

presence of one or more organic HAP or

other representative substances whose

presence in cooling water indicates a

leak shall comply with the requirements

specified in § 63.104(b) (1) through (6)

of subpart F of this part. The cooling

water shall be monitored for total HAP,

total VOC, total organic carbon, one or

more speciated HAP compounds, or

other representative substances that

would indicate the presence of a leak in

the heat exchange system.

(3) An owner or operator who elects

to comply with the requirement of

paragraph (g)(1) of this section by

monitoring using a surrogate indicator

of heat exchange system leaks shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (g)(3) (i) through (iii) of

this section. Surrogate indicators that

could be used to develop an acceptable

monitoring program are ion specific

electrode monitoring, pH, and

conductivity or other representative

indicators.

(i) The owner or operator shall

prepare and implement a monitoring

plan that documents the procedures that

will be used to detect leaks of process

fluids into cooling water. The plan shall

include the information specified in

§ 63.1365(f)(2).

(ii) If a substantial leak is identified

by methods other than those described

in the monitoring plan and the

method(s) specified in the plan could

not detect the leak, the owner or

operator shall revise the plan and

document the basis for the changes. The

owner or operator shall complete the

revisions to the plan no later than 180

days after discovery of the leak.

(iii) The owner or operator shall

maintain, at all times, the monitoring

plan that is currently in use. The current

plan shall be maintained onsite, or shall

be accessible from a central location by

computer or other means that provides

access within 2 hours after a request. A

superseded plan shall be retained onsite

(or shall be accessible from a central

location by computer or other means

that provides access within 2 hours after

a request) for at least 6 months after it

is superseded.

(4) If a leak is detected according to

the criteria of paragraphs (g) (2) or (3) of

this section, the owner or operator shall

comply with the requirements in

paragraphs (g)(4) (i) and (ii) of this

section, except as provided in paragraph

(g)(5) of this section.

(i) The leak shall be repaired as soon

as practical but not later than 45

calendar days after the owner or

operator receives results of monitoring

tests indicating a leak. The leak shall be

repaired unless the owner or operator

demonstrates that the results are due to

a condition other than a leak.

(ii) Once the leak has been repaired,

the owner or operator shall confirm that

the heat exchange system has been

repaired within 7 calendar days of the

repair or startup, whichever is later.

(5) Delay of repair of heat exchange

systems for which leaks have been

detected is allowed under the

conditions specified in § 63.104(e) of

subpart F of this part. If an owner or

operator elects to delay repair of heat

exchange systems, the owner or operator

shall also comply with the

documentation requirements in

§ 63.104(e).

(6) The owner or operator shall retain

the records specified in § 63.1366(g) and

include the information identified in

§ 63.1367(e) in reports.

(h) Planned routine maintenance. The

specifications and requirements in

paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section

for control devices do not apply during

periods of planned routine

maintenance. Maintenance wastewaters

meeting the definition of a Group 1

wastewater stream shall be treated in

accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this section.

(i) Periods of planned routine

maintenance of the control device,

during which the control device does

not meet the specifications of

paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this

section, as applicable, shall not exceed

240 hr/yr.

(j) Pollution prevention. Except as

provided in paragraph (j)(1) of this

section, an owner or operator may

choose to meet the pollution prevention

alternative requirement specified in

either paragraph (j) (2) or (3) of this

section for any process, in lieu of the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section.

Compliance with the requirements of

paragraphs (j) (2) and (3) of this section

shall be demonstrated through the

procedures in § 63.1364(g).

(1) HAP that are generated in the

process shall be controlled according to

the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c),

(d), (e), and (f) of this section.

(2) The production-indexed HAP

consumption factor (HAP factor) shall

be reduced by 85 percent from an

average baseline established no earlier

than the 1987 calendar year, or the first

year thereafter in which the process was

operational and data are available. No

increase in the production-indexed VOC

consumption factor (VOC factor) for the

applicable period of demonstration shall

occur.

(3) Both requirements specified in

paragraph (j)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section

are met.

(i) The HAP factor shall be reduced by

50 percent from an average baseline

established no earlier than the 1987

calendar year, or the first year thereafter

in which the process was operational
60586 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and data are available. No increase in

the VOC factor for the applicable period

of demonstration shall occur.

(ii) The total process HAP emissions

shall be reduced from an uncontrolled

baseline by an amount, in kg/yr, that,

when divided by the annual production

rate, in kg, will yield a value of at least

35 percent of the average baseline HAP

factor established in paragraph (j)(3)(i)

of this section. The annual reduction in

HAP air emissions must be due to the

use of the following control devices:

(A) Combustion control devices such

as incinerators, flares, or process

heaters.

(B) Recovery control devices such as

condensers and carbon adsorbers whose

recovered product is destroyed or

shipped offsite for destruction.

(C) Any control device that does not

ultimately allow for recycling of

material back to the process.

(D) Any control device for which the

owner or operator can demonstrate that

the use of the device in controlling HAP

emissions will have no effect on the

HAP factor for the process.

(k) Emissions averaging provisions.

Except as provided in paragraphs (k) (1)

through (6) of this section, the owner or

operator of an existing affected facility

may choose to comply with the

emission standards in paragraphs (b),

(c), and (d) of this section by using

emissions averaging procedures

specified in § 63.1364(i) for organic HAP

emissions from any storage tank,

process, or waste management unit that

is part of an affected source subject to

this subpart.

(1) A State may restrict the owner or

operator of an existing source to use

only the procedures in paragraphs (b),

(c), and (d) of this section to comply

with the emission standards where State

Authorities prohibit averaging of HAP

emissions.

(2) Group 1 emission points that are

controlled as specified in paragraphs

(k)(2) (i) through (iii) of this section may

not be used to calculate emissions

averaging credits, unless the control

technology has been approved for use in

a different manner, and a higher

nominal efficiency has been assigned

according to the procedures in

§ 63.150(i) of subpart G of this part.

(i) Storage tanks with capacity equal

to or greater than 76 m3 (20,000 gal)

controlled with an internal floating roof

meeting the specifications of § 63.119(b)

of subpart G of this part, and external

floating roof meeting the specifications

of § 63.119(c) of subpart G of this part,

an external floating roof converted to an

internal floating meeting the

specifications of § 63.119(d) of subpart

G of this part, or a closed-vent system

to a control device achieving 95 percent

reduction in organic HAP emissions.

(ii) Process vents controlled with a

combustion, recovery, or recapture

device used to reduce organic HAP

emissions by 98 weight percent or to an

outlet TOC concentration of 20 ppmv.

(iii) Wastewater controlled as

specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) (A)

through (C) of this section.

(A) With controls specified in

§ 63.133 through § 63.137 of subpart G

of this part;

(B) With a steam stripper meeting the

specifications of § 63.138(d) of subpart

G of this part, or any of the other

alternative control measures specified in

§ 63.138 (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of

subpart G of this part; and

(C) With a control device to reduce by

95 percent (or to an outlet concentration

of 20 ppmv for combustion devices or

for noncombustion devices controlling

air emissions from waste management

units other than surface impoundments

or containers) the organic HAP

emissions in the vapor streams vented

from wastewater tanks, oil-water tanks,

oil-water separators, containers, surface

impoundments, individual drain

systems, and treatment processes

(including the steam stripper specified

in paragraph (k)(2)(iii)(B) of this section)

managing wastewater.

(3) Maintenance wastewater streams

and wastewater streams treated in

biological treatment units may not be

included in any averaging group.

(4) Processes which have been

permanently shut down, and storage

tanks permanently taken out of HAP

service may not be included in any

averaging group.

(5) Processes, storage tanks, and

wastewater streams already controlled

on or before November 15, 1990 may not

be used to generate emissions averaging

credits, unless the level of control is

increased after November 15, 1990. In

these cases, credit will be allowed only

for the increase in control after

November 15, 1990.

(6) Emission points controlled to

comply with a State or Federal rule

other than this subpart may not be

included in an emissions averaging

group, unless the level of control has

been increased after November 15, 1990,

above what is required by the other

State or Federal rule. Only the control

above what is required by the other

State or Federal rule will be credited.

However, if an emission point has been

used to generate emissions averaging

credit in an approved emissions

average, and the point is subsequently

made subject to a State or Federal rule

other than this subpart, the point can

continue to generate emissions

averaging credit for the purpose of

complying with the previously

approved average.

§ 63.1363 Compliance dates.

(a) An owner or operator of an

existing affected source shall comply

with the provisions of this subpart no

later than 3 years after the effective date

of the standard.

(b) An owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source, for which

construction or reconstruction

commences after November 10, 1997,

shall comply with the provisions of this

subpart immediately upon startup.

§ 63.1364 Test methods and compliance

procedures.

(a) Emissions testing or engineering

evaluations, as specified in paragraphs

(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of this section, are

required to demonstrate initial

compliance with § 63.1362 (b), (c), (d),

(f) and (j), respectively, of this subpart.

(b) When testing is conducted to

measure emissions from an affected

source, the test methods specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this

section shall be used. Compliance tests

shall be performed under conditions

specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this

section.

(1) EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix

A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used for

sample and velocity traverses.

(2) EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of

appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be

used for velocity and volumetric flow

rates.

(3) EPA Method 3 of appendix A of

40 CFR part 60 shall be used for gas

analysis.

(4) EPA Method 4 of appendix A of

40 CFR part 60 shall be used for stack

gas moisture.

(5) EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, and

4 shall be performed, as applicable, at

least twice during each test period.

(6) Method 25A and/or Methods 18

and 25A, as appropriate, of appendix A

of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used to

determine the organic HAP

concentration of air exhaust streams.

(7) The methods in either paragraph

(b)(7) (i) or (ii) of this section shall be

used to determine the concentration, in

mg/dscm, of total hydrogen halides and

halogens.

(i) EPA Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A.

(ii) Any other method if the method

or data has been validated according to

the applicable procedures of Method

301 of appendix A of this part.

(8) Method 5 shall be used to

determine the concentration of

particulate matter HAP in exhaust gas

streams from bag dumps and product

dryers.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60587

(9) Wastewater analysis shall be

conducted in accordance with

§ 63.144(b)(5)(i) through (iii) of subpart

G of this part.

(10) For emission streams controlled

using condensers, a direct measurement

of condenser outlet gas temperature to

be used in predicting upper

concentration limits at saturated

conditions is allowed in lieu of

concentration measurements described

in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

(11) Test conditions and durations

shall be as specified in paragraphs

(b)(11)(i) through (v) of this section, as

appropriate.

(i) Testing of process vents on

equipment operating as part of a

continuous process shall consist of three

1-hour runs. Gas stream volumetric flow

rates shall be measured every 15

minutes during each 1-hour run.

Organic HAP concentration shall be

determined from samples collected in

an integrated sample over the duration

of each 1-hour test run, or from grab

samples collected simultaneously with

the flow rate measurements (every 15

minutes). If an integrated sample is

collected for laboratory analysis, the

sampling rate shall be adjusted

proportionally to reflect variations in

flow rate. For continuous gas streams,

the emission rate used to determine

compliance shall be the average

emission rate of the three test runs.

(ii) Testing of process vents on

equipment where the flow of gaseous

emissions is intermittent (batch

operations) shall include testing for the

largest (or peak) HAP emission episode

or aggregated episodes in the batch

cycle or cycles (in the event that

equipment may be manifolded and

vented through a common stack).

Testing shall be conducted at absolute

peak-case conditions, representative

peak-case conditions, or hypothetical

peak-case conditions as required by

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. Gas

stream volumetric flow rates shall be

measured at 15-minute intervals.

Organic HAP or TOC concentration

shall be determined from samples

collected in an integrated sample over

the duration of the peak case episode(s),

or from grab samples collected

simultaneously with the flow rate

measurements (every 15 minutes). If an

integrated sample is collected for

laboratory analysis, the sampling rate

shall be adjusted proportionally to

reflect variations in flow rate. The

absolute peak-case, representative peakcase, or hypothetical peak-case

conditions shall be characterized by the

criteria presented in paragraphs

(b)(11)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.

In all cases, a site-specific plan shall be

submitted to the Administrator for

approval prior to testing in accordance

with § 63.7(c) of subpart A of this part.

The test plan shall include the

emissions profile described in

paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section.

(A) Absolute peak-case conditions are

defined by any of the criteria presented

in paragraphs (b)(11)(ii)(A)(1) through

(3) of this section.

(1) The period in which the inlet to

the control device will contain at least

50 percent of the maximum HAP load

(in kg) capable of being vented to the

control device over any 8 hour period.

An emission profile as described in

paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section

shall be used to identify the 8-hour

period that includes the maximum

projected HAP load.

(2) A 1-hour period of time in which

the inlet to the control device will

contain the highest HAP mass loading

rate, in kg/hr, capable of being vented to

the control device. An emission profile

as described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of

this section shall be used to identify the

1-hour period of maximum HAP

loading.

(3) If a condenser is used as a control

device, absolute peak-case conditions

shall represent a 1-hour period of time

in which the gas stream capable of being

vented to the condenser will require the

maximum heat removal capacity, in kW,

to cool the stream to a temperature that,

upon calculation of HAP concentration,

will yield the required removal

efficiency for the process. The

calculation of maximum heat load shall

be based on the emission profile

described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this

section and a concentration profile that

will allow calculation of sensible and

latent heat loads.

(B) Representative peak-case

conditions are defined by any of the

criteria presented in paragraphs

(b)(11)(ii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.

Representative peak-case conditions

shall include the worst-case process as

well as any other processes that are

emitting to the control device during the

test.

(1) A 1-hour period of time that

contains the highest HAP mass loading

rate, in kg/hr, from a single process;

(2) If a condenser is used as the

control device, the 1-hour period of time

in which the vent from a single process

will require the maximum heat removal

capacity, in kW, to cool the stream to a

temperature that, upon calculation of

HAP concentration, will yield the

required removal efficiency for the

process.

(C) Hypothetical peak-case conditions

are simulated test conditions that, at a

minimum, contain the highest total

average hourly HAP load of emissions

that would be predicted to be vented to

the control device from the emissions

profile described in paragraph

(b)(11)(iii) of this section.

(iii) For batch operations, the owner

or operator may choose to perform tests

only during those periods of the peakcase episode(s) that the owner or

operator selects to control as part of

achieving the required emission

reduction. The owner or operator shall

develop an emission profile for the vent

to the control device, based on either

process knowledge, engineering

analyses, or test data collected, to

identify the appropriate test conditions.

The emission profile must include

average HAP loading rate (in kg/hr)

versus time for all emission episodes

contributing to the vent stack for a

period of time that is sufficient to

include all batch cycles venting to the

stack. Examples of information that

could constitute process knowledge

include calculations based on material

balances, and process stoichiometry.

Previous test results may be used

provided the results are still relevant to

the current process vent stream

conditions. The average hourly HAP

loading rate may be calculated by first

dividing the HAP emissions from each

episode by the duration of each episode,

in hours, and selecting the highest

hourly block average.

(iv) For testing of process vents of

duration greater than 8 hours, the owner

or operator shall perform a maximum of

8 hours of testing. The test period must

include the one hour period in which

the highest HAP loading rate, in kg/hr,

is predicted by the emission profile.

(v) For testing durations of greater

than 1 hour, the emission rate from a

single test run may be used to determine

compliance. For testing durations less

than or equal to 1 hour, testing shall

include three runs.

(c) Compliance with process vent

provisions. An owner or operator of an

affected source shall demonstrate

compliance with the process vent

standards in § 63.1362(b) using the

procedures described in paragraphs

(c)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(4) of this section, compliance with

the process vent standards in

§ 63.1362(b) shall be demonstrated in

accordance with the provisions

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through

(viii) of this section.

(i) Compliance with the emission

limit cutoffs in § 63.1362(b)(2)(i) and

(4)(i) is demonstrated when the

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions

from the sum of all process vents within

a process are less than or equal to 330
60588 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

lb/yr. Uncontrolled HAP emissions shall

be determined using the procedures

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this

section.

(ii) Compliance with the emission

limit cutoffs in § 63.1362(b)(3)(i) and

(5)(i) is demonstrated when the

uncontrolled HCl and Cl2 emissions

from the sum of all process vents within

a process are less than or equal to 6.8

Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr). Compliance with

the emission limit cutoffs in

§ 63.1362(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) is

demonstrated when the uncontrolled

HCl and Cl2 emissions are greater than

or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr (7.5 tons/yr) or

greater than or equal to 191 Mg/yr (211

tons/yr), respectively. Uncontrolled

emissions shall be determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section.

(iii) Compliance with the organic HAP

percent removal efficiency specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(ii) is demonstrated when

the annual uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from the sum of all process

vents within a process are reduced by

90 percent. This demonstration shall be

based on controlled HAP emissions

determined using the procedures

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section and uncontrolled HAP

emissions determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section or by controlling the

process vents using a device meeting the

criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of

this section.

(iv) Compliance with the HCl and Cl2

percent removal efficiency specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(3)(ii) and (5)(ii) is

demonstrated when the annual

uncontrolled HCl and Cl2 emissions

from the sum of all process vents within

a process are reduced by 94 percent.

Compliance with the HCl and Cl2

percent removal efficiency specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(5)(iii) is demonstrated

when the annual HCl and Cl2 emissions

from the sum of all process vents within

a process are reduced by 99.9 percent.

This demonstration shall be based on

controlled emissions of HCl and Cl2

determined using the procedures

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section and uncontrolled emissions of

HCl and Cl2 determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section.

(v) Compliance with the organic HAP

percent removal efficiency specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(4)(ii) is demonstrated when

the annual uncontrolled organic HAP

emissions from the use of all process

vents within a process are reduced by

98 percent. This demonstration shall be

based on controlled HAP emissions

determined using the procedures

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section and uncontrolled HAP

emissions determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section or by controlling the

process vents using a device meeting the

criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of

this section.

(vi) Compliance with the emission

reduction requirement in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(iii) is demonstrated

when the annual uncontrolled HAP

emissions from each process vent

meeting the flowrate cutoff specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(A) are reduced by 98

percent or greater. This demonstration

shall be based on controlled HAP

emissions determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(3)

of this section and uncontrolled HAP

emissions determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section or by controlling the

process vents using a device meeting the

criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of

this section.

(vii) Compliance with the emission

reduction requirement in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(B) is demonstrated

when the annual uncontrolled HAP

emissions from each process vent

meeting the flow rate cutoff of

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(A) are reduced by 90

percent. This demonstration shall be

based on controlled HAP emissions

determined using the procedures

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section and uncontrolled HAP

emissions determined using the

procedures described in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section or by controlling the

process vents using a device meeting the

criteria specified in paragraph (c)(4) of

this section.

(viii) Compliance with the outlet TOC

concentration limit in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(ii)(B), (2)(iii), and (4)(iii)

is demonstrated by the method specified

in paragraph (c)(l)(viii)(A) of this section

for combustion devices or by the

method specified in either paragraph

(c)(l)(viii)(B) or (C) of this section for

recovery or recapture devices.

(A) An initial Method 18 performance

test shall be conducted. An operating

parameter, as specified by the owner or

operator in the Notification of

Compliance Status report, shall be

monitored continuously. The level of

the parameter shall be established

during the performance test.

(B) The TOC concentration shall be

monitored continuously using an FID.

The organic HAP used as the calibration

gas shall be the predominant HAP in the

vent stream.

(C) An initial performance test shall

be conducted at absolute peak-case

conditions using Method 25A. An

operating parameter shall be monitored

continuously. The value of the

parameter shall be established during

the performance test.

(2) An owner or operator of an

affected source complying with the

emission limitation required by

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(i), (3)(i), (4)(i) or (5)(i), or

the emission reductions specified in

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(ii)(A), (2)(iii), (3)(ii),

(4)(ii), (4)(iii), (5)(ii), or (5)(iii) for each

process vent within a process, shall

calculate uncontrolled emissions

according to the procedures described

in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this

section, as appropriate.

(i) An owner or operator shall

determine uncontrolled emissions of

HAP using emission measurements and/

or calculations for each batch emission

episode within each unit operation

according to the engineering evaluation

methodology in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A)

through (F) of this section.

(A) Individual HAP partial pressures

in multicomponent systems shall be

determined in accordance with the

methods specified in paragraphs

(c)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) If the components are miscible in

one another, use Raoult’s law to

calculate the partial pressures;

(2) If the solution is a dilute aqueous

mixture, use Henry’s law constants to

calculate partial pressures;

(3) If Raoult’s law or Henry’s law are

not appropriate or available, use

experimentally obtained activity

coefficients, Henry’s law constants, or

solubility data;

(4) If Raoult’s law or Henry’s law are

not appropriate or available, use

experimentally obtained activity

coefficients or models such as the

group-contribution models, to predict

activity coefficients;

(5) If Raoult’s law or Henry’s law are

not appropriate or available, assume the

components of the system behave

independently and use the summation

of all vapor pressures from the HAP as

the total HAP partial pressure;

(6) Chemical property data can be

obtained from standard reference texts.

(B) Emissions from vapor

displacement due to transfer of material

shall be calculated according to

equation (1):

E y V P MW

R T

i T = ( )( )( )( )

( )( ) ( )1

Where:

E = mass emission rate.

yi = saturated mole fraction of HAP in

the vapor phase.

V = volume of gas displaced from the

vessel.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60589

R = ideal gas law constant.

T = temperature of the vessel vapor

space; absolute.

PT = pressure of the vessel vapor space.

MW = molecular weight of the HAP.

(C) Emissions from purging shall be

calculated using Equation 1, except that

for purge flow rates greater than 100

scfm, the mole fraction of HAP will be

assumed to be 25 percent of the

saturated value.

(D) Emissions caused by the heating

of a vessel shall be calculated using the

procedures in either paragraph

(c)(2)(i)(D)(1), (2), or (3) of this section,

as appropriate.

(1) If the final temperature to which

the vessel contents are heated is lower

than 50K below the boiling point of the

HAP in the vessel, then emissions shall

be calculated using equations (2)

through (5) in paragraphs

(c)(2)(i)(D)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this

section.

(i) The mass of HAP emitted per

episode shall be calculated using

equation 2:

E

P

Pa

P

Pa MW

i T i T

= HAP

( ) + ( )

× ×

∑ ∑ 1

1

2

2

2 ∆η ( ) 2

Where:

E = mass of HAP vapor displaced from

the vessel being heated.

(Pi)Tn = partial pressure of each HAP in

the vessel headspace at initial (n =

1) and final (n = 2) temperatures.

Pa1 = initial noncondensable gas

pressure in the vessel.

Pa2 = final noncondensable gas

pressure.

MWHAP = The average molecular weight

of HAP present in the vessel.

(ii) The moles of noncondensable gas

displaced is calculated using equation 3:

∆η = 



 



 − 



 





















V

R

Pa

T

Pa

T

1

1

2

2

( ) 3

Where:

∆η = number of lb-moles of

noncondensable gas displaced.

V = volume of free space in the vessel.

R = ideal gas law constant.

Pa1 = initial noncondensable gas

pressure in the vessel.

Pa2 = final noncondensable gas

pressure.

T1 = initial temperature of vessel.

T2 = final temperature of vessel.

(iii) The initial and final pressure of

the noncondensable gas in the vessel

shall be calculated according to the

equation 4:

Pa P P T n atm i n = − ∑( ) ( ) 4

Where:

Pan = partial pressure of

noncondensable gas in the vessel

headspace at initial (n = 1) and final

(n = 2) temperatures.

Patm = atmospheric pressure.

(Pi)Tn = partial pressure of each

condensable volatile organic

compound (including HAP) in the

vessel headspace at the initial

temperature (n = 1) and final (n =

2) temperature.

(iv) The average molecular weight of

HAP in the displaced gas shall be

calculated using equation 5:

MW

mass of HA

HAP

i

i

n

i

i i

n =

( )

( )

( )

=

=

∑

∑

P

mass of HAP

HAP molecular weight

1

1

( ) 5

where n is the number of different HAP

compounds in the emission stream.

(2) If the vessel contents are heated to

a temperature greater than 50K below

the boiling point, then emissions from

the heating of a vessel shall be

calculated as the sum of the emissions

calculated in accordance with

paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D)(2)(i) and (ii) of

this section.

(i) For the interval from the initial

temperature to the temperature 50K

below the boiling point, emissions shall

be calculated using Equation 2, where

T2 is the temperature 50K below the

boiling point.

(ii) For the interval from the

temperature 50K below the boiling point

to the final temperature, emissions shall

be calculated as the summation of

emissions for each 5K increment, where

the emission for each increment shall be

calculated using Equation 2.

(A) If the final temperature of the

heatup is lower than 5K below the

boiling point, the final temperature for

the last increment shall be the final

temperature of the heatup, even if the

last increment is less than 5K.

(B) If the final temperature of the

heatup is higher than 5K below the

boiling point, the final temperature for

the last increment shall be the

temperature 5K below the boiling point,

even if the last increment is less than

5K.

(C) If the vessel contents are heated to

the boiling point and the vessel is not

operating with a process condenser, the

final temperature for the final increment

shall be the temperature 5K below the

boiling point, even if the last increment

is less than 5K.

(3) If the vessel is operating with a

process condenser, and the vessel

contents are heated to the boiling point,

the primary condenser is considered

part of the process. Emissions shall be

calculated as the sum of Equation 2,

which calculates emissions due to

heating the vessel contents to the

temperature of the gas exiting the

condenser, and Equation 1, which

calculates emissions due to the

displacement of the remaining saturated

noncondensable gas in the vessel. The

final temperature in Equation 2 shall be

set equal to the exit gas temperature of

the process condenser. In Equation 1, V

shall be set equal to the free space

volume, and T2 shall be set equal to the

condenser exit gas temperature.

(E) Emissions from depressurization

shall be calculated using the procedures

in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(E)(1) through (5)

of this section.

(1) The moles of HAP vapor initially

in the vessel are calculated using the

ideal gas law in equation 6:
60590 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

N

Y V P

R T HAP

HAP = ( )( )( ) 1 ( ) 6

Where:

YHAP = mole fraction of HAP (the sum

of the individual HAP fractions,

ΣYi).

V = free volume in the vessel being

depressurized.

P1 = initial vessel pressure.

R = gas constant.

T = vessel temperature, absolute units.

(2) The moles of noncondensable gas

present initially in the vessel are

calculated using equation 7:

n

VP

RT

nc

1 1 = ( ) 7

Where:

V = free volume in the vessel being

depressurized.

Pnc1 = initial partial pressure of the

noncondensable gas, P1¥-ΣPi.

R = gas law constant, K.

T = temperature, absolute units.

(3) The moles of noncondensable gas

present at the end of depressurization

are calculated using Equation 8:

n

VP

RT

NC

2 2 = ( ) 8

Where:

V = free volume in the vessel being

depressurized.

Pnc2 = final partial pressure of the

noncondensable gas, P2¥Σ Xi Pi.

R = gas law constant.

T = temperature, absolute.

(4) The moles of HAP emitted during

the depressurization are calculated by

taking an approximation of the average

ratio of moles of HAP to moles of

noncondensable and multiplying by the

total moles of noncondensables released

during the depressurization using

Equation 9:

n

n

n

n

n n N

HAP HAP

HAP

1 2

1 2 2

9

+ 



 





[ ] − = ( )

Where:

NHAP = moles of HAP emitted.

(5) The moles of HAP emitted can be

converted to a mass rate using Equation

10:

N MW

t

Er HAP HAP

HAP

* = ( ) 10

Where:

ErHAP = emission rate of the HAP.

MWHAP = molecular weight of the HAP.

t = time of the depressurization.

(F) Emissions from vacuum systems

may be calculated if the air leakage rate

is known or can be approximated, using

Equation 11:

E MWs La P

P P r

system

system i

= − − 









 29

1 11 ( )

Where:

Er = rate of HAP emission, in lb/hr.

Psystem = absolute pressure of receiving

vessel or ejector outlet conditions, if

there is no receiver.

Pi = vapor pressure of the HAP at the

receiver temperature, in mmHg.

La = total air leak rate in the system,

lb/hr.

29 = molecular weight of air, lb/lbmole.

(ii) For emission episodes in which an

owner or operator can demonstrate that

the methods in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this

section are not appropriate according to

the criteria specified in paragraph

(c)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner or

operator shall calculate uncontrolled

emissions by conducting an engineering

assessment which includes, but is not

limited to, the information and

procedures described in paragraphs

(c)(2)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section:

(A) Previous test results provided the

tests are representative of current

operating practices at the process unit.

(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data

representative of the process under

representative operating conditions.

(C) Maximum flow rate, HAP

emission rate, concentration, or other

relevant parameter specified or implied

within a permit limit applicable to the

process vent.

(D) Design analysis based on accepted

chemical engineering principles,

measurable process parameters, or

physical or chemical laws or properties.

Examples of analytical methods include,

but are not limited to:

(1) Use of material balances based on

process stoichiometry to estimate

maximum organic HAP concentrations;

(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate

based on physical equipment design

such as pump or blower capacities; and

(3) Estimation of HAP concentrations

based on saturation conditions.

(E) All data, assumptions, and

procedures used in the engineering

assessment shall be documented in

accordance with § 63.1366(b). Data or

other information supporting a finding

that the emissions estimation equations

are inappropriate shall be reported in

the Notification of Compliance Status.

(iii) The emissions estimation

equations in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this

section shall be considered

inappropriate for estimating emissions

for a given batch emissions episode if

one or more of the criteria in paragraphs

(c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are

met.

(A) Previous test data are available

that show a greater than 20 percent

discrepancy between the test value and

the estimated value.

(B) The owner or operator can

demonstrate to the Administrator

through any other means that the

emissions estimation equations are not

appropriate for a given batch emissions

episode.

(3) An owner or operator shall

determine controlled emissions using

emission measurements and/or

calculations for each process vent using

the control efficiency calculated for

each device that controls process vents

with total HAP emissions of less than

9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr), before control,

according to the design evaluation

described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this

section, or using the emission

estimation equations described in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, as

appropriate. An owner or operator shall

determine controlled emissions for each

process vent using the control efficiency

determined for each device that controls

process vents with total HAP emissions

of greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr),

before control, by conducting a

performance test on the control device

as described in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)

through (iv) of this section, or by using

the results of a previous performance

test as described in paragraph (c)(5) of

this section. An owner or operator is not

required to conduct performance tests

for devices described in paragraphs

(c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section that

control total emissions of greater than

10 tons/yr, before control.

(i) The design evaluation shall

include documentation demonstrating

that the control device being used

achieves the required control efficiency

during the emission episodes in which

it is functioning in reducing emissions.

This documentation shall include a

description of the gas stream which

enters the control device, including flow

and HAP concentration, and the

information specified in paragraphs

(c)(3)(i)(A) through (G) of this section, as

applicable.

(A) If the control device receives

vapors, gases or liquids, other than

fuels, from emission points other than

storage tanks subject to this subpart, the

efficiency demonstration shall include

consideration of all vapors, gases, and

liquids, other than fuels, received by the

control device.

(B) If an enclosed combustion device

with a minimum residence time of 0.5

seconds and a minimum temperature of

760 °C is used to meet any of the

emission reduction requirements

specified in § 63.1362(c), documentation

that those conditions exist is sufficient
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60591

to meet the requirements of paragraph

(c)(3)(i) of this section.

(C) Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, for thermal

incinerators, the design evaluation shall

include the autoignition temperature of

the organic HAP, the flow rate of the

organic HAP emission stream, the

combustion temperature, and the

residence time at the combustion

temperature.

(D) For carbon adsorbers, the design

evaluation shall include the affinity of

the organic HAP vapors for carbon, the

amount of carbon in each bed, the

number of beds, the humidity of the

feed gases, the temperature of the feed

gases, the flow rate of the organic HAP

emission stream, the desorption

schedule, the regeneration stream

pressure or temperature, and the flow

rate of the regeneration stream. For

vacuum desorption, pressure drop shall

be included.

(E) For condensers, the design

evaluation shall include the final

temperature of the organic HAP vapors,

the type of condenser, and the design

flow rate of the organic HAP emission

stream.

(F) For gas absorbers, the design

evaluation shall include the flow rate of

the emission stream, the type of solvent,

and solvent flow rate, pH of the inlet

solvent, and the design of the absorber.

(G) For fabric filters, the design

evaluation shall include the pressure

drop through the device, and the net

gas-to-cloth ratio.

(ii) Except for control devices that

meet an outlet TOC concentration of 20

ppmv, the performance test shall be

conducted by performing emission

testing on the inlet and outlet of the

control device following the test

methods and procedures of paragraph

(b) of this section. For control devices

that meet an outlet TOC concentration

of 20 ppmv, the performance testing

shall be conducted by performing

emission testing on the outlet of the

control device following the test

methods and procedures of paragraph

(b) of this section. Each owner or

operator seeking to demonstrate that the

outlet stream from a combustion,

recovery, or recapture device has a TOC

concentration below 20 ppmv shall

calculate the concentration according to

the procedures specified in paragraphs

(c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.

(A) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is

the sum of the concentrations of the

individual components and shall be

computed for each run using equation

12:

C

C

x roc

ji

j

n

i

x

=











 =

=

∑

∑ 1

1

( ) 12

Where:

CTOC = concentration of TOC, dry basis,

ppmv.

Cji = concentration of individual

component j in sample i, dry basis,

ppmv.

n = number of individual components

in the sample.

x = number of samples in the sample

run.

(B) The concentration of TOC shall be

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. The

integrated sampling and analysis

procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A, shall be used to

determine the oxygen concentration

(percent O2d) that is used in the TOC

concentration correction factor

calculation. The samples shall be taken

during the same time that the TOC

samples are taken. The concentration

corrected to 3 percent oxygen (Cc) shall

be computed using Equation 13:

C C

O c m

d

= −











 17 9

20 9

13

2

.

. % ( )

Where:

Cc = concentration of TOC corrected to

3 percent oxygen, dry basis, ppmv.

Cm = concentration of TOC, dry basis,

ppmv.

%O2d = concentration of oxygen, dry

basis, percent by volume.

(iii) Performance testing shall be

conducted under the conditions

specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A) and

(B) of this section.

(A) Except as specified in paragraphs

(c)(3)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section,

the owner or operator shall test over

absolute or hypothetical peak-case

conditions for all control devices.

(B) For thermal incinerators, the

owner or operator may also choose to

test over representative peak-case

conditions; however, if the owner or

operator chooses to test over

representative peak-case conditions, the

maximum allowable vent stream

flowrate into the thermal incinerator is

restricted to the level for which it was

designed. The design basis of the

incinerator shall be included as part of

the Notification of Compliance Status.

(C) For carbon adsorbers, the owner or

operator may also choose to test over

representative peak-case conditions.

(D) For wet scrubbers, the owner or

operator may also choose to test over

representative peak-case conditions.

The results of the performance test shall

be used to calibrate or validate the

results of validated models used to

establish the operating parameter

values.

(iv) The owner or operator may elect

to conduct more than one performance

test on the control device for the

purpose of establishing operating

conditions associated with a range of

achievable control efficiencies.

(4) An owner or operator is not

required to conduct a performance test

when a control device specified in

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this

section is used to comply with the

organic HAP emission reductions

required by § 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (2)(iii), or

(4)(ii). Emissions from these devices are

considered in compliance with the

reductions required by

§ 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (2)(iii), and (4)(ii).

(i) A boiler or process heater with a

design heat input capacity of 44

megawatts or greater.

(ii) A boiler or process heater where

the vent stream is introduced with the

primary fuel or is used as the primary

fuel.

(iii) A boiler or process heater burning

hazardous waste for which the owner or

operator:

(A) Has been issued a final permit

under 40 CFR part 270 and complies

with the requirements of 40 CFR part

266, subpart H, or

(B) Has certified compliance with the

interim status requirements of 40 CFR

part 266, subpart H.

(iv) A hazardous waste incinerator for

which the owner or operator has been

issued a final permit under 40 CFR part

270 and complies with the requirements

of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or has

certified compliance with the interim

status requirements of 40 CFR part 265,

subpart O.

(v) A flare that complies with the

provisions in § 63.11(b) of subpart A of

this part.

(5) An owner or operator is not

required to conduct a performance test

for any of the control systems described

in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this

section.

(i) Any control device for which a

previous performance test was

conducted, provided the test was

conducted using the same procedures

specified in § 63.1364(b) of this subpart

over conditions typical of the

appropriate worst-case, as defined in

paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.

The results of the previous performance

test shall be used to demonstrate

compliance.

(ii) A condenser system that is

equipped with a temperature sensor and

recorder, such that the condenser exit

gas temperature can be measured at 15-

minute intervals when the condenser is
60592 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

functioning in cooling a vent stream.

The condenser exit gas temperature

shall be used to calculate removal

efficiency of the condenser in

demonstrating compliance.

(d) Compliance with storage tank

provisions. The owner or operator of an

affected storage tank shall demonstrate

compliance with § 63.1362(c)(1) and (2),

as applicable, by fulfilling the

requirements of paragraph (d)(1) and

either paragraph (d)(2), (3), or (4) of this

section. The owner or operator of an

affected storage tank shall demonstrate

compliance with § 63.1362(c)(3) by

fulfilling the requirements of paragraph

(d)(1) and either paragraph (d)(2), (3), or

(5) of this section.

(1) To determine the Group 1 status of

a tank, the owner or operator shall

determine the uncontrolled emissions

using the methods described in

American Petroleum Institute

Publication 2518, Evaporative Loss

From Fixed-Roof Tanks (incorporated

by reference as specified in § 63.14 of

subpart A of this part).

(2) For each Group 1 storage tank, the

owner or operator shall compute the

mass rate of total organic HAP (EI, EO)

to demonstrate compliance with the

percent reduction requirement of

§ 63.1362(c)(1), (2) or (3).

(i) Equations 14 and 15 shall be used:

E K C M Q i ij ij

j

n

= i











 =

2 ∑

1

( ) 14

E K C M Q o oj oj

j

n

= o











 =

2 ∑

1

( ) 15

Where:

CiJ, COJ=concentration of sample

component j of the gas stream at the

inlet and outlet of the control

device, respectively, dry basis,

ppmv.

Ei, EO=mass rate of total organic HAP at

the inlet and outlet of the control

device, respectively, dry basis, kg/

hr.

Mij, Moj=molecular weight of sample

component j of the gas stream at the

inlet and outlet of the control

device, respectively, g/gmole.

Qi, Qo=flow rate of gas stream at the

inlet and outlet of the control

device, respectively, dscmm.

K2=constant, 2.494 × 10–6 (parts per

million)–1 (gram-mole per standard

cubic meter) (kilogram/gram)

(minute/hour), where standard

temperature is 20 °C.

(ii) The percent reduction in total

organic HAP shall be calculated using

equation 16:

R

E E

E

i o

i

= − (100) ( ) 16

Where:

R=control efficiency of control device,

percent.

Ei=mass rate of total organic HAP at the

inlet to the control device as

calculated under paragraph (d)(l)(i)

of this section, kilograms organic

HAP per hour.

Eo=mass rate of total organic HAP at the

outlet of the control device, as

calculated under paragraph (d)(2)(i)

of this section, kilograms organic

HAP per hour.

(iii) A performance test is not required

to be conducted if the control device

used to comply with § 63.1362(c)

(storage tank provisions) is also used to

comply with § 63.1362(b) (process vent

provisions), and compliance with

§ 63.1362(b) has been demonstrated in

accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this

section.

(iv) A performance test is not required

if the control device meets any of the

conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)

or (5) of this section.

(3) To demonstrate compliance with

the percent reduction requirement of

§ 63.1362(c)(1), (2) or (3), a design

evaluation shall be prepared. The design

evaluation shall include documentation

showing that the control device being

used achieves the required control

efficiency during reasonably expected

maximum filling rate. This

documentation shall include a

description of the gas stream which

enters the control device, including flow

and organic HAP content under varying

liquid level conditions, and the

information specified in paragraphs

(c)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section, as

applicable.

(4) If the owner or operator of an

affected source chooses to comply with

the provisions of § 63.1362(c)(1) or (2)

by installing a floating roof, the owner

or operator shall comply with the

procedures described in § 63.119(b), (c),

or (d) of subpart G of this part and the

procedures described in § 63.120 of

subpart G of this part, with the

differences specified in

§ 63.1362(d)(2)(i) through (iv).

(5) Except as provided in paragraphs

(d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section,

compliance with the concentration

requirement of § 63.1362(c)(3) shall be

demonstrated by determining the outlet

concentration of organic HAP using the

applicable test methods described in

paragraph (b) of this section. If a

combustion control device is used, the

organic HAP concentration shall be

corrected to 3 percent oxygen according

to the procedures specified in paragraph

(c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.

(i) A performance test is not required

if the conditions described in paragraph

(d)(2)(iii) of this section apply.

(ii) A performance test is not required

if the control device meets any of the

conditions specified in paragraphs

(c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.

(iii) A performance test is not required

for any control device for which a

previous test was conducted, provided

the test was conducted using the same

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of

this section.

(iv) A performance test is not required

for a condenser system operated in

accordance with the provisions

specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this

section.

(e) Compliance with wastewater

provisions. An owner or operator shall

demonstrate compliance with the

wastewater requirements by complying

with the provisions in §§ 63.131 through

63.149, except that the owner or

operator need not comply with the

requirement to determine visible

emissions that is specified in

§ 63.145(j)(1).

(f) Compliance with the bag dump

and product dryer provisions.

Compliance with the particulate HAP

concentration limits specified in

§ 63.1362(f) is demonstrated when the

concentration of particulate HAP is less

than 0.01 gr/dscf, as measured or

estimated using one of the procedures

described in paragraph (f) (1) or (2) of

this section.

(1) The concentration of particulate

HAP shall be measured using the

method described in paragraph (a)(8) of

this section.

(2) The concentration of particulate

HAP shall be calculated based on

knowledge of the process. The owner or

operator shall provide sufficient

information to document the

concentration. An example of

information that could constitute such

knowledge include previous test results,

provided the results are still

representative of current operating

practices at the process unit.

(g) Pollution prevention alternative

standard. The owner or operator shall

demonstrate compliance with

§ 63.1362(j) using the procedures

described in either paragraph (g) (1) or

(2) of this section.

(1) Compliance with § 63.1362(j)(2) is

demonstrated when the annual HAP

factor is reduced to a value equal to or

less than 15 percent of the baseline HAP

factor, and the annual VOC factor is

equal to or less than the baseline VOC

factor. Factors shall be calculated in

accordance with the procedures
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60593

specified in paragraphs (g)(1) (i) and (ii)

of this section.

(i) The baseline HAP and VOC factors

shall be calculated by dividing the

consumption of total HAP and total

VOC by the production rate, per

process, for the first 12-month period for

which data are available, to begin no

earlier than January 1, 1987.

(ii) The annual HAP and VOC factors

shall be calculated in accordance with

the procedures specified in paragraphs

(g)(1)(ii) (A) through (C) of this section.

(A) The consumption of both total

HAP and total VOC shall be divided by

the production rate, per process, for 12-

month periods at the frequency

specified in either paragraph (g)(1)(ii)

(B) or (C) of this section, as applicable.

(B) For continuous processes, the

annual factors shall be calculated every

30 days for the 12-month period

preceding the 30th day (annual rolling

average calculated every 30 days).

(C) For batch processes, the annual

factors shall be calculated every 10

batches for the 12-month period

preceding the 10th batch (annual rolling

average calculated every 10 batches).

(2) Compliance with § 63.1362(j)(3) is

demonstrated when the requirements of

paragraphs (g)(2) (i) through (iv) of this

section are met.

(i) The annual HAP factor is reduced

to a value equal to or less than 50

percent of the baseline HAP factor, and

the annual VOC factor is equal to or less

than the baseline VOC factor. Factors

shall be calculated in accordance with

the procedures specified in paragraphs

(g)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.

(ii) The yearly reduction, in kg HAP/

yr, associated with add-on controls that

meet the criteria of § 63.1362(j)(3)(ii) (A)

through (D), is equal to or greater than

the mass of HAP calculated using

equation 17:

[ ] [ ] kg/kg d = [ ] b a a *. * ( ) 35 17 kg produce kg reduced

Where:

[kg/kg]b = the baseline HAP factor, kg

HAP consumed/kg product.

[kg produced]a = the annual production

rate, kg/yr.

[kg reduced]a = the annual HAP

emissions reduction required by

add-on controls, kg/yr.

(iii) Demonstration that the criteria in

§§ 63.1362(j)(3)(ii) (A) through (D) are

met shall be accomplished through a

description of the control device and of

the material streams entering and

exiting the control device.

(iv) The annual reduction achieved by

the add-on control shall be quantified

using the methods described in

paragraph (c) of this section.

(h) Planned maintenance. The owner

or operator shall demonstrate

compliance with the requirements of

§ 63.1362(b), and (c) by including in

each Periodic Report required by

§ 63.1367 the periods of planned routine

maintenance specified by date and time

(planned routine maintenance of a

control device, during which the control

device does not meet the specifications

of § 63.1362, as applicable, shall not

exceed 240 hours per year).

(i) Compliance with emissions

averaging provisions. An owner or

operator shall demonstrate compliance

with the emissions averaging provisions

of § 63.1362(k) by fulfilling the

requirements of paragraphs (i)(1)

through (6) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shall

develop and submit for approval an

Implementation Plan containing all the

information required in § 63.1366(f).

The Implementation Plan shall be

submitted 18 months prior to the

compliance date of the standard. The

Administrator shall have 60 days to

approve or disapprove the emissions

averaging plan after which time the plan

shall be considered approved. The plan

shall be considered approved if the

Administrator either approves the plan

in writing, or fails to disapprove the

plan in writing. The 60 day period shall

begin when the Administrator receives

the request. If the request is denied, the

owner or operator must still be in

compliance with the standard by the

compliance date.

(2) For all points included in an

emissions average, the owner or

operator shall comply with the

procedures that are specified in

paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (v) of this

section.

(i) Calculate and record monthly

debits for all Group 1 emission points

that are controlled to a level less

stringent than the standard for those

emission points. Equations in paragraph

(i)(5) of this section shall be used to

calculate debits.

(ii) Calculate and record monthly

credits for all Group 1 and Group 2

emission points that are overcontrolled

to compensate for the debits. Equations

in paragraph (i)(6) of this section shall

be used to calculate credits. All process

vent, storage tank, and wastewater

emission points except those specified

in § 63.1362(k)(1) through (6) may be

included in the credit calculation.

(iii) Demonstrate that annual credits

calculated according to paragraph (i)(6)

of this section are greater than or equal

to debits calculated according to

paragraph (i)(5) of this section for the

same annual compliance period. The

initial demonstration in the

Implementation Plan or operating

permit application that credit-generating

emission points will be capable of

generating sufficient credits to offset the

debit-generating emission points shall

be made under representative operating

conditions. After the compliance date,

actual operating data shall be used for

all debit and credit calculations.

(iv) Demonstrate that debits

calculated for a quarterly (3-month)

period according to paragraph (i)(5) of

this section are not more than 1.30 times

the credits for the same period

calculated according to paragraph (i)(6)

of this section. Compliance for the

quarter shall be determined based on

the ratio of credits and debits from that

quarter, with 30 percent more debits

than credits allowed on a quarterly

basis.

(v) Record and report quarterly and

annual credits and debits as required in

§§ 63.1366(f) and 63.1367(d).

(3) Credits and debits shall not

include emissions during periods of

malfunction. Credits and debits shall

not include periods of startup and

shutdown for continuous processes.

(4) During periods of monitoring

excursions credits and debits shall be

adjusted as specified in paragraphs (i)(4)

(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) No credits would be assigned to the

credit-generating emission point.

(ii) Maximum debits would be

assigned to the debit-generating

emission point.

(iii) The owner or operator may

demonstrate to the Administrator that

full or partial credits or debits should be

assigned using the procedures in

§ 63.150(l) of subpart G of this part.

(5) Debits are generated by the

difference between the actual emissions

from a Group 1 emission point that is

uncontrolled or controlled to a level less

stringent than the applicable standard

and the emissions allowed for the Group

1 emission point. Debits shall be

calculated in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(5)

(i) through (iv) of this section.
60594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(i) Source-wide debits shall be

calculated using Equation 18 of this

subpart:

Debits=

Debits EPV EPV ES ES EWW EWW iA iU

i

n

iA iU

i

n

iA iC

i

n

= − ( ) ( )( ) ( ) − ( )( ) + − ( ) ( ) = = =

∑ ∑ ∑ 0 10 0 05 18

1 1 1

. . ( ) + 

Where:

Debits and all terms of Equation 18

are in units of Mg/month, and

EPViU=uncontrolled emissions from

process i calculated according to

the procedures specified in

paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section.

EPViA=actual emissions from each

Group 1 process i that is

uncontrolled or is controlled to a

level less stringent than the

applicable standard. EPViA is

calculated using the procedures in

paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section.

ESiU=uncontrolled emissions from

storage tank i calculated according

to the procedures specified in

paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section.

ESiA=actual emissions from each Group

1 storage tank i that is uncontrolled

or is controlled to a level less

stringent than the applicable

standard. ESiA is calculated using

the procedures in paragraph

(i)(5)(iii) of this section.

EWWiC=emissions from each Group 1

wastewater stream i if the standard

had been applied to the

uncontrolled emissions. EWWiC is

calculated using the procedures in

paragraph (i)(5)(iv) of this section.

EWWiA=actual emissions from each

Group 1 wastewater stream i that is

uncontrolled or is controlled to a

level less stringent than the

applicable standard. EWWiA is

calculated using the procedures in

paragraph (i)(5)(iv) of this section.

n=the number of emission points being

included in the emissions average.

The value of n is not necessarily the

same for process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater.

(ii) Emissions from process vents shall

be calculated in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraphs

(i)(5)(ii) (A) through (C) of this section.

(A) Except as provided in paragraph

(i)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, uncontrolled

emissions for process vents shall be

calculated using the procedures that are

specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this

section.

(B) Except as provided in paragraph

(i)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, actual

emissions for process vents shall be

calculated using the procedures

specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(C) As an alternative to the procedures

described in paragraphs (h)(5)(ii) (A)

and (B) of this section, for continuous

processes, uncontrolled and actual

emissions may be calculated by the

procedures described in § 63.150(g)(2) of

subpart G of this part. For purposes of

complying with this paragraph, the 98

percent reduction in § 63.150(g)(2)(iii) of

subpart G of this part shall mean 90

percent.

(iii) Uncontrolled emissions from

storage tanks shall be calculated in

accordance with the procedures

described in paragraph (d)(1) of this

section. Actual emissions from storage

tanks shall be calculated using the

procedures specified in § 63.150(g)(3)

(ii), (iii), or (iv) of subpart G of this

subpart, as appropriate, except as

provided in paragraphs (i)(5)(iii) (A) and

(B) of this section.

(A) When § 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(C) refers to

§ 63.119(e)(2) and 90-percent reduction,

§ 63.1362(d)(1)(ii) and 41-percent

reduction shall apply for the purposes

of this subpart.

(B) When § 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(B) refers to

the procedures in § 63.120(d) for

determining percent reduction for a

control device, § 63.1364(d) (2) or (3)

shall apply for the purposes of this

subpart.

(iv) Emissions from wastewater shall

be calculated using the procedures

specified in § 63.150(g)(5) of subpart G

of this part.

(6) Credits are generated by the

difference between emissions that are

allowed for each Group 1 and Group 2

emission point and the actual emissions

from that Group 1 or Group 2 emission

point that has been controlled after

November 15, 1990 to a level more

stringent than what is required in this

subpart or any other State or Federal

rule or statute. Credits shall be

calculated in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(6)

(i) through (v) of this section.

(i) Source-wide credits shall be

calculated using Equation 19 in this

paragraph (i)(6)(i):

Credits=

Credits D EPV EPV D EPV EPV

D ES ES D ES ES

D EWW EWW D EWW EWW

iU iA

i

n

iB iA

i

m

iU iA

i

n

iB iA

i

m

iC iA

i

n

iB iA

= ( ) ( )( ) − + − ( ) +

( ) ( )( ) − + − ( ) +

( ) − + −

= =

= =

=

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

∑

0 10 1 1 2 2

0 05 1 1 2 2 19

1 1 2 2

1 1

1 1

1

.

. ( )

 

 

 ( ) =

∑

i

m

1

Where: Credits and all terms in equation

19 are in units of Mg/month, the

baseline date is November 15, 1990,

the terms consisting of a constant

multiplied by the uncontrolled

emissions are the emissions from

each emission point subject to the

standards in § 63.1362 (b) and (c)

that is controlled to a level more

stringent than the standard, and

EPV1iU = uncontrolled emissions from

each Group 1 process i calculated

according to the procedures in

paragraph (i)(6)(iii)(A) of this

section.

EPV1iA = actual emissions from each

Group 1 process i that is controlled

to a level more stringent than the

applicable standard. EPViA is

calculated according to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60595

procedures in paragraph

(i)(6)(iii)(B) of this section.

EPV2iB = emmissions from each Group

2 process i at the baseline date.

EPV2iB is calculated according to

the procedures in paragraph

(i)(6)(iii)(C) of this section.

EPV2iA=actual emissions from each

Group 2 process i that is controlled.

EPV2iA is calculated according to

the procedures in paragraph

(i)(6)(iii)(C) of this section.

ES1iU=uncontrolled emissions from

each Group 1 storage tank i

calculated according to the

procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of

this section.

ES1iA=actual emissions from each

Group 1 storage tank i that is

controlled to a level more stringent

that the applicable standard. ES1iA

is calculated according to the

procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of

this section.

ES2iB=emissions from each Group 2

storage tank i at the baseline date.

ES2iB is calculated according to the

procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of

this section.

ES2iA=actual emissions from each

Group 2 storage tank i that is

controlled. ES2iA is calculated

according to the procedures in

paragraph (i)(6)(iv) of this section.

EWW1iC=emissions from each Group 1

wastewater stream i if the standard

had been applied to the

uncontrolled emissions. EWW1iC is

calculated according to the

procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(v) of

this section.

EWW1iA=emissions from each Group 1

wastewater stream i that is

controlled to a level more stringent

than the applicable standard.

EWW1iA is calculated according to

the procedures in paragraph (i)(6)(v)

of this section.

EWW2iB=emissions from each Group 2

wastewater stream i at the baseline

date. EWW2iB is calculated

according to the procedures in

paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.

EWW2iA=actual emissions from each

Group 2 wastewater stream i that is

controlled. EWW2iA is calculated

according to the procedures in

paragraph (i)(6)(v) of this section.

n=number of Group 1 emission points

that are included in the emissions

average. The value of n is not

necessarily the same for process

vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater.

m=number of Group 2 emission points

included in the emissions average.

The value of m is not necessarily

the same for process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater.

D=discount factor equal 0.9 for all

credit-generating emission points

except those controlled by a

pollution prevention measure,

which will not be discounted.

(ii) For an emission point controlled

using a pollution prevention measure,

the nominal efficiency for calculating

credits shall be as determined as

described in § 63.150(j) of subpart G of

this part.

(iii) Emissions from process vents

shall be calculated in accordance with

the procedures specified in paragraphs

(i)(6)(iii) (A) through (C) of this section

(A) Uncontrolled emissions from

Group 1 process vents shall be

calculated according to the procedures

in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) (A) or (C) of this

section.

(B) Actual emissions from Group 1

process vents with a nominal efficiency

greater than the applicable standard or

a pollution prevention measure shall be

calculated using equation 20:

EPV1Ai=EPV1Ui×[(1¥(Nominal

efficiency, %)/100%)] (20)

(C) Baseline and actual emissions

from Group 2 process vents shall be

calculated according to the procedures

in § 63.150(h)(2) (iii) and (iv) with the

following modifications:

(1) The term ‘‘98 percent reduction’’

shall mean ‘‘90 percent reduction’’; and

(2) The references to paragraph (g)(2)

of this section shall mean paragraph

(i)(5)(ii) of this section.

(iv) Uncontrolled emissions from

storage tanks shall be calculated

according to the procedures described

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

Actual and baseline emissions from

storage tanks shall be calculated

according to the procedures specified in

§ 63.150(h)(3) of subpart G of this part,

except when § 63.150(h)(3) refers to

§ 63.150(g)(3)(i), paragraph (d)(1) of this

section shall apply for the purposes of

this subpart.

(v) Emissions from wastewater shall

be calculated using the procedures in

§ 63.150(h)(5) of subpart G of this part.

§ 63.1365 Monitoring and inspection

requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of any

existing, new, or reconstructed affected

source shall provide evidence of

continued compliance with the

standard. During the initial compliance

demonstration, maximum or minimum

operating parameters, as appropriate,

shall be established for emission sources

that will indicate the source is in

compliance. Test data, calculations, or

information from the evaluation of the

control device design shall be used to

establish the operating parameter. If the

operating parameter to be established is

a maximum and if performance testing

has been required, the value of the

parameter shall be the average of the

maximum values from each of the three

test runs. If the operating parameter to

be established is a minimum and if

performance testing has been required,

the value of the parameter shall be the

average of the minimum values from

each of the three test runs. Parameter

values for process vents from batch

operations shall be determined as

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of

this section. The owner or operator shall

operate processes and control devices

within these parameters to ensure

continued compliance with the

standard. Monitoring parameters are

specified for continuous process vent

control scenarios in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (8) of this section.

(1) For all control devices that are

used to control process vent streams

totaling less than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr)

HAP emissions, before control,

monitoring shall consist of a periodic

verification that the device is operating

properly. This verification shall include,

but not be limited to, a periodic

demonstration that the unit is working

as designed. This demonstration shall

be included in the Precompliance

report, to be submitted 12 months prior

to the compliance date of the standard.

(2) For affected sources using water

scrubbers that are used to control

process vent streams totaling greater

than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

controls, the owner or operator shall

establish a minimum scrubber water

flow rate as a site-specific operating

parameter which must be measured and

recorded every 15 minutes. The affected

source will be in violation of the

emission standard if the scrubber water

flow rate, averaged over the operating

day, is below the minimum value

established during the initial

compliance demonstration.

(3) For affected sources using

condensers that are used to control

process vent streams totaling greater

than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

controls, the owner or operator shall

establish the maximum condenser outlet

gas temperature as a site-specific

operating parameter which must be

measured and recorded every 15

minutes. The affected source will be in

violation of the emission standard if the

condenser outlet gas temperature,

averaged over the operating day, is

greater than the maximum value

established during the initial

compliance demonstration.

(4) For affected sources using carbon

adsorbers that are used to control

process vent streams totaling greater
60596 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

controls, the owner or operator shall

establish the site-specific operating

parameter(s) specified in either

paragraph (a)(4) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this

section.

(i) A maximum outlet HAP

concentration shall be specified as the

site-specific operating parameter. The

affected source will be in violation of

the emission standard if the outlet HAP

concentration, averaged over the

operating day, is greater than the

maximum value established during the

initial compliance demonstration.

(ii) The outlet TOC concentration

shall be established as the site-specific

operating parameter. The affected

source will be in violation of the

emission standard if the outlet TOC

concentration, averaged over the

operating day for each process, is greater

than 20 ppmv.

(iii) The adsorption/regeneration

cycle characteristics shall be established

under absolute peak-case conditions,

and the frequency of monitoring for the

operating parameters specified below

shall be described in the Notification of

Compliance Status Report. The affected

source will be in violation of the

emission standard if any of the values

for these parameters established during

the initial compliance demonstration

are exceeded.

(A) Maximum time of adsorption;

(B) Minimum bed temperature during

regeneration;

(C) Maximum bed temperature after

cooling;

(D) Minimum regeneration stream

flow rate; and

(E) Maximum time between tests to

determine bed poisoning.

(5) For affected sources using flares

that are used to control process vent

streams totaling greater than 0.91 Mg/yr

(1 ton/yr), before controls, the presence

of the pilot flame shall be monitored

every 15 minutes. Loss of pilot flame is

a violation of the emission standard.

(6) For affected sources using

combustion devices that are used to

control process vents totaling greater

than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

controls, the owner or operator shall

monitor the temperature of the gases

exiting the combustion chamber as the

site-specific operating parameter which

must be measured and recorded every

15 minutes. The affected sources will be

in violation of the emission standard if

the chamber temperature averaged over

the operating day, is greater than the

maximum value established during the

initial compliance demonstration.

(7) For each fabric filter used to

control particulate HAP emissions from

bag dumps and product dryers totaling

more than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

controls, the owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, maintain, and

continuously operate a bag leak

detection system that meets the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(7) (i)

through (viii) of this section.

(i) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

or absolute PM emissions.

(ii) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound when an increase in PM

emissions over a preset level is detected.

(iii) For positive pressure fabric

filters, a bag leak detector must be

installed in each fabric filter

compartment or cell. If a negative

pressure or induced air filter is used, the

bag leak detector must be installed

downstream of the fabric filter. Where

multiple bag leak detectors are required

(for either type of fabric filter), the

system instrumentation and alarm may

be shared among detectors.

(iv) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed, operated, calibrated

and maintained in a manner consistent

with available guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such guidance, the

manufacturer’s written specifications

and instructions.

(v) Calibration of the system shall, at

a minimum, consist of establishing the

relative baseline output level by

adjusting the range and the averaging

period of the device and establishing the

alarm set points and the alarm delay

time.

(vi) The owner or operator shall not

adjust the range, averaging period, alarm

set points, or alarm delay time

contained in the Notification of

Compliance Status report without

written approval from the

Administrator.

(vii) If the alarm on a bag leak

detection system is triggered, the owner

or operator shall inspect the control

device to determine the cause of the

deviation and initiate within 1 hour of

the alarm the corrective actions

specified in the Notification of

Compliance Status report. Failure to

initiate the corrective action procedures

within 1 hour of the alarm is a violation

of the particulate HAP emission

standard.

(viii) If the bag leak detection system

alarm is activated for more than 5

percent of the total operating time

during a 6-month reporting period, the

owner or operator shall develop and

implement a written quality

improvement plan consistent with

subpart D of this part of the draft

approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.

(8) For each waste management unit,

treatment process, or control device

used to comply with § 63.1362(d), the

owner or operator shall comply with the

procedures specified in § 63.143 of

subpart G of this part, except that when

the procedures to request approval to

monitor alternative parameters

according to the procedures in

§ 63.151(f) are referred to in

§ 63.143(d)(3), the procedures in

paragraph (c) of this section shall apply

for the purposes of this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator of any

existing, new, or reconstructed affected

source that chooses to comply with the

emission limit or emission reduction

requirement for batch process vents and

combined streams from process vents

and storage tanks shall provide evidence

of continued compliance with the

standard. As part of the initial

compliance demonstrations for batch

process vents and storage tanks, test

data, compliance calculations, or

information from the control device

design evaluation shall be used to

establish a maximum or minimum level

of a relevant operating parameter for

each control device that the owner or

operator selects to operate as part of

achieving the required emission

reduction or emission limitation. The

owner or operator shall operate

processes and control devices within

these parameters to ensure continued

compliance with the standard.

(1) For devices that are used to control

batch process vent streams totaling less

than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr) HAP

emissions, before control, monitoring

shall consist of a periodic verification

that the device is operating properly.

This verification shall include, but not

be limited to, a periodic demonstration

that the unit is working as designed.

This demonstration shall be included in

the Precompliance report, to be

submitted 12 months prior to the

compliance date of the standard.

(2) For batch process vents that are

routed to a device that receives HAP in

excess of 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr), before

control, the level(s) shall be established

in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) (i)

through (iv) of this section.

(i) If more than one batch emission

episode or more than one portion of a

batch emission episode has been

selected to be controlled, a single level

for the batch cycle(s) or process(es) shall

be calculated from the initial

compliance demonstration. The

appropriate parameter shall be

determined for the peak-case

conditions, as determined in

§ 63.1364(b)(7) (ii) and (iii), selected to

be controlled. The average parameter

monitoring level for the cycle(s) or
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60597

process(es) shall be based on the

parameter value determined from the

peak-case conditions.

(ii) Instead of establishing a single

level for the batch cycle(s) or

process(es), as described in paragraph

(b)(2)(i) of this section, an owner or

operator may establish separate levels

for each batch emission episode, or

portion thereof, selected to be

controlled.

(iii) For devices controlling at least

9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for which a

performance test is required, the owner

or operator may establish the parametric

monitoring level(s) based on the

performance test supplemented by

engineering assessments and

manufacturer’s recommendations.

Performance testing is not required to be

conducted over the entire range of

expected parameter values. The

rationale for the specific level for each

parameter, including any data and

calculations used to develop the level(s)

and a description of why the level

indicates proper operation of the control

device shall be provided in the

Precompliance report. The procedures

specified in this section have not been

approved by the Administrator and

determination of the parametric

monitoring level using these procedures

is subject to review and approval by the

Administrator.

(iv) For devices controlling at least 9.1

Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for which a

performance test is conducted at routine

conditions, the owner or operator shall

establish the parametric monitoring

level(s) at conditions of the test. The

level(s) established shall be provided in

the Notification of Compliance Status

report.

(3) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) (4) through (8) of this section, if the

sum of HAP emissions, before control,

routed to the device is greater than 0.91

Mg/yr (1.0 ton/yr), the appropriate

parameter shall be monitored at 15-

minute intervals, or at least once for

batch emission episodes of duration

shorter than 15 minutes, for the entire

period in which the control device is

functioning in achieving required

removals.

(4) Affected sources with condensers

on process vents shall establish the

maximum condenser outlet gas

temperature as a site-specific operating

parameter. The affected source will be

in violation of the emission standard if

the condenser outlet gas temperature,

averaged over the operating day for each

process, is greater than the value

established during the initial

compliance demonstration.

(5) For affected sources using water

scrubbers, the owner or operator shall

establish a minimum scrubber water

flow rate as a site-specific operating

parameter. The affected source will be

in violaton of the emission standard if

the scrubber water flow rate, averaged

over the operating day for each process,

is below the minimum flow rate

established during the initial

compliance demonstration.

(6) For affected sources using carbon

adsorbers, the owner or operator shall

establish and monitor the site-specific

operating parameter(s) in either

paragraph (b)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this

section:

(i) A maximum outlet HAP

concentration shall be established as the

site-specific operating parameter. The

affected source will be in violation of

the emission standard if the outlet HAP

concentration, averaged over the

operating day for each process, is greater

than the value established during the

initial compliance demonstration.

(ii) The outlet TOC concentration

shall be established as the site-specific

operating parameter. The affected

source will be in violation of the

emission standard if the outlet TOC

concentration, averaged over the

operating day for each process, is greater

than 20 ppmv.

(iii) The adsorption/regeneration

cycle characteristics shall be established

under absolute peak-case conditions,

and the frequency of monitoring for the

operating parameters specified below

shall be described in the Notification of

Compliance Status Report. The affected

source will be in violation of the

emission standard if any of the values

for these parameters established during

the initial compliance demonstration

are exceeded.

(A) Maximum time of adsorption;

(B) Minimum bed temperature during

regeneration;

(C) Maximum bed temperature after

cooling;

(D) Minimum regeneration stream

flow rate; and

(E) Maximum time between tests to

determine bed poisoning.

(7) For affected sources using flares,

the presence of the pilot flame shall be

monitored. Loss of pilot flame is a

violation of the emission standard.

(8) For affected sources using

combustion devices, the temperature of

the gases exiting the combustion

chamber shall be monitored. The

affected source will be in violation of

the emission standard if the combustion

chamber temperature, averaged over the

operating day for each process, is less

than the value established during the

initial compliance demonstration.

(c) An owner or operator may request

approval to monitor parameters other

than those required by paragraphs (a)(2)

through (8) and (b)(5) through (8) of this

section. The request shall be submitted

according to the procedures specified in

§ 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part or in

the Precompliance Report (as specified

in § 63.1367(a)(2)).

(d) Periods of time when monitoring

measurements exceed the parameter

values as well as periods of inadequate

monitoring data do not constitute a

violation if they occur under the

conditions described in paragraph (d)(1)

or (2) of this section.

(1) For continuous processes, during a

startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and

the facility follows its startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan.

(2) For batch processes, during a

malfunction, and the facility follows its

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan.

(e) Equipment leaks. The owner or

operator of any affected source

complying with the requirements of

subpart H of this part shall meet the

monitoring requirements specified in

subpart H of this part.

(f) Heat exchangers. The owner or

operator of an affected source

complying with the requirements of

§ 63.1362(g) shall meet the monitoring

requirements specified in paragraph

(f)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) An owner or operator that elects to

comply with the requirements of

§ 63.1362(g)(2) shall meet the

monitoring requirements specified in

§ 63.104(b) of subpart F of this part.

(2) An owner or operator that elects to

comply with the requirements of

§ 63.1362(g)(3) shall prepare and

implement a monitoring plan that

includes the information specified in

paragraphs (f)(2) (i) through (iv) of this

section. The plan shall require

monitoring of one or more surrogate

indicators or monitoring of one or more

process parameters or other conditions

that indicate a leak. Monitoring that is

already being conducted for other

purposes may be used to satisfy the

requirements of this section.

(i) A description of the parameter or

condition to be monitored and an

explanation of how the selected

parameter or condition will reliably

indicate the presence of a leak.

(ii) The parameter level(s) or

condition(s) that shall constitute a leak.

This shall be documented by data or

calculations showing that the selected

levels or conditions will reliably

identify leaks. The monitoring must be

sufficiently sensitive to determine the

range of parameter levels or conditions

when the system is not leaking. When

the selected parameter level or
60598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

condition is outside that range, a leak is

detected.

(iii) The monitoring frequency which

shall be no less frequent than monthly

for the first 6 months and quarterly

thereafter to detect leaks.

(iv) The records that will be

maintained to document compliance

with the requirements of § 63.1362(f).

(g) Pollution prevention. The owner or

operator of an affected source that

chooses to comply with the

requirements of § 63.1362(j)(2) or (3)

shall calculate annual rolling average

values of the HAP and VOC factors in

accordance with the procedures

specified in § 63.1364(g)(1) (i) and (ii).

The owner or operator will be

considered out of compliance any time

the annual HAP factor exceeds the

baseline HAP factor by the amount

specified in either § 63.1364 (g)(1) or

(2)(i), or the annual VOC factor exceeds

the baseline VOC factor.

(h) Emissions averaging. The owner or

operator of an affected source that

chooses to comply with the

requirements of § 63.1362(k) shall meet

all monitoring requirements specified in

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this

section, as applicable, for all processes,

storage tanks, and waste management

units included in the emissions average.

§ 63.1366 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected source shall keep records of

daily values of equipment operating

parameters specified to be monitored

under § 63.1365, or specified by the

Administrator. Records shall be kept in

accordance with the requirements of

applicable paragraphs of § 63.10 of

subpart A of this part, as specified in the

General Provisions applicability table of

this subpart (Table 1). The owner or

operator shall keep records up-to-date

and readily accessible.

(1) A daily (24-hour) average shall be

calculated as the average of all values

for a monitored parameter recorded

during the operating day.

(2) The operating day shall be the

period defined in the operating permit

or the Notification of Compliance Status

in § 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part. It

may be from midnight to midnight or

another continuous 24-hour period.

(3) For every operating day in which

the daily average value for an operating

parameter is outside its established

range, the owner or operator shall keep

records of each parameter value reading

taken during the day on which the

excursion occurred.

(4) For processes subject to

§ 63.1362(j), records shall be maintained

of annual HAP and VOC factors

calculated every 30 days for continuous

processes and every 10 batches for batch

processes.

(5) For each bag leak detector used to

monitor particulate HAP emissions from

a fabric filter, the owner or operator

shall maintain records of any bag leak

detection alarm, including the date and

time, with a brief explanation of the

cause of the alarm and the corrective

action taken.

(b) The owner or operator of an

affected source that complies with the

standards for process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater systems shall

maintain up-to-date, readily accessible

records of the information specified in

paragraphs (b) (1) through (5) of this

section to document that HAP emissions

or HAP loadings (for wastewater) are

below the limits specified in § 63.1362:

(1) The emissions of gaseous organic

HAP and HCl per batch for each

process.

(2) The wastewater concentrations

and flowrates per POD and process.

(3) The number of batches per year for

each batch process.

(4) The operating hours per year for

continuous processes.

(5) The number of tank turnovers per

year.

(c) The owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the standards

in § 63.1362(e), and implementing the

leak detection and repair program

specified in subpart H of this part, shall

implement the recordkeeping

requirements specified in § 63.181 of

subpart H of this part. All records shall

be retained for a period of 5 years, in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of this part.

(d) For unit operations occurring more

than once per day, exceedances of

established parameter limits shall result

in no more than one violation per

operating day for each monitored item

of equipment utilized in the unit

operation.

(e) For certain items of monitored

equipment used for more than one type

of unit operation in the course of an

operating day, exceedances shall result

in no more than one violation per

operating day, per item of monitored

equipment, for each type of unit

operation in which the item is in

service.

(f) An owner or operator of an affected

source that chooses to comply with the

requirements of § 63.1362(k) shall

maintain up-to-date records of the

following information:

(1) An Implementation Plan which

shall include in the plan, for all

emission points included in each of the

emissions averages, the information

listed in paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (v)

of this section.

(i) The identification of all emission

points in each emissions average.

(ii) The values of all parameters

needed for input to the emission debits

and credits equations in § 63.1364(i).

(iii) The calculations used to obtain

the debits and credits.

(iv) The estimated values for all

parameters required to be monitored

under § 63.1365(h) for each emission

point included in an average. These

parameter values, or as appropriate,

limited ranges for parameter values,

shall be specified as enforceable

operating conditions for the operation of

the process, storage tank, or waste

management unit, as appropriate.

Changes to the parameters must be

reported as required by § 63.1367(d).

(v) A statement that the compliance

demonstration, monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping and reporting provisions

in § 63.1364(i), § 63.1365(h), and

§ 63.1367(d) that are applicable to each

emission point in the emissions average

will be implemented beginning on the

date of compliance.

(2) The Implementation Plan shall

demonstrate that the emissions from the

emission points proposed to be

included in the average will not result

in greater hazard or, at the option of the

operating permit authority, greater risk

to human health or the environment

than if the emission points were

controlled according to the provisions

in § 63.1362(b) through (d).

(i) This demonstration of hazard or

risk equivalency shall be made to the

satisfaction of the operating permit

authority.

(A) The Administrator may require an

owner or operator to use specific

methodologies and procedures for

making a hazard or risk determination.

(B) The demonstration and approval

of hazard or risk equivalency shall be

made according to any guidance that the

Administrator makes available for use or

any other technically sound information

or methods.

(ii) An Implementation Plan that does

not demonstrate hazard or risk

equivalency to the satisfaction of the

Administrator shall not be approved.

The Administrator may require such

adjustments to the Implementation Plan

as are necessary in order to ensure that

the average will not result in greater

hazard or risk to human health or the

environment than would result if the

emission points were controlled

according to § 63.1362(b) through (d).

(iii) A hazard or risk equivalency

demonstration must satisfy the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(f)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.

(A) Be a quantitative, comparative

chemical hazard or risk assessment;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60599

(B) Account for differences between

averaging and non-averaging options in

chemical hazard or risk to human health

or the environment; and

(C) Meet any requirements set by the

Administrator for such demonstrations.

(3) Records as specified in paragraphs

(a), (b) and (d) of this section.

(4) A calculation of the debits and

credits as specified in § 63.1364(i) for

the last quarter and the prior four

quarters.

(g) The owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the

requirements in § 63.1362(g) shall retain

the records identified in paragraphs

(g)(1) through (4) of this section as

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section.

(1) Monitoring data required by

§ 63.1362(g)(2) or (3) indicating a leak

was detected, and if demonstrated not to

be a leak, the basis for that

determination.

(2) Records of any leaks detected by

procedures subject to § 63.1362(g)(3)(ii)

and the date the leak was discovered.

(3) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.

(4) The method or procedure used to

confirm repair of a leak and the date

repair was confirmed.

§ 63.1367 Reporting requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected source that elects to comply

with the emission limit or emission

reduction requirements for process

vents, storage tanks, and waste

management units, shall comply with

the reporting requirements of applicable

paragraphs of §§ 63.9 and 63.10 of

subpart A of this part, as specified in the

General Provisions applicability table.

(1) The Notification of Compliance

Status report required under § 63.9(h)

shall be submitted within 150 calendar

days of the compliance date and shall

include the information specified in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this

section.

(i) The results of any applicability

determinations, emission calculations,

or analyses used to identify and

quantify HAP emissions from applicable

sources.

(ii) The results of emissions profiles,

performance tests, engineering analyses,

design evaluations, or calculations used

to demonstrate compliance. For

performance tests, results should

include descriptions of sampling and

analysis procedures and quality

assurance procedures.

(iii) Descriptions of monitoring

devices, monitoring frequencies, and the

values of monitored parameters

established during the initial

compliance determinations, including

data and calculations to support the

levels established.

(iv) For fabric filters that are

monitored with bag leak detectors,

descriptions of procedures for the

proper operation and maintenance of

the fabric filters and corrective actions

to be taken when the particulate

concentration exceeds the standard and

activates the alarm.

(2) The Precompliance report shall be

submitted 12 months prior to the

compliance date of the standard. For

new sources, the Precompliance report

shall be submitted to the Administrator

with the application for approval of

construction or reconstruction. The

Administrator shall have 60 days to

approve or disapprove the plan. The

plan shall be considered approved if the

Administrator either approves the plan

in writing, or fails to disapprove the

plan in writing. The 60 day period shall

begin when the Administrator receives

the request. If the request is denied, the

owner or operator must still be in

compliance with the standard by the

compliance date. The Precompliance

report shall include the information

specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through

(iii) of this section.

(i) Requests for approval to use

alternative monitoring parameters

according to the procedures specified in

§ 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part or

requests to set monitoring parameters

according to § 63.1365(b)(2)(iii).

(ii) Descriptions of how the control

devices subject to § 63.1365(a)(1) and

(b)(1) will be checked to verify that they

are operating as designed.

(iii) A description of test conditions

and limits of operation for control

devices tested under normal conditions,

and the corresponding monitoring

parameter values.

(b) Quarterly reports. The owner or

operator shall submit to the

Administrator, as part of the quarterly

excess emissions and continuous

monitoring system performance report

and summary report required by

§ 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A of this part,

the recorded information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) though (3) of this

section.

(1) Reports of monitoring data,

including 15-minute monitoring values,

daily average values of monitored

parameters for all operating days when

the average values were outside the

ranges established in the Notification of

Compliance Status or operating permit,

and records of all alarms from the bag

leak detection systems.

(2) Reports of the duration of periods

when monitoring data are not collected

for each excursion caused by

insufficient monitoring data. An

excursion means either of the two cases

listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this

section. For a control device where

multiple parameters are monitored, if

one or more of the parameters meets the

excursion criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i)

or (ii) of this section, this is considered

a single excursion for the control device.

(i) When the period of control device

operation is 4 hours or greater in an

operating day and monitoring data are

insufficient to constitute a valid hour of

data, as defined in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)

of this section, for at least 75 percent of

the operating hours.

(ii) When the period of control device

operation is less than 4 hours in an

operating day and more than one of the

hours during the period of operation

does not constitute a valid hour of data

due to insufficient monitoring data.

(iii) Monitoring data are insufficient

to constitute a valid hour of data, as

used in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of

this section, if measured values are

unavailable for any of the 15-minute

periods within the hour.

(3) Whenever a process change, as

defined in § 63.115(e) of subpart G of

this part, is made that causes the

emission rate from a de minimis

emission point to become a process vent

with an emission rate of 0.45 kg/yr

(1 lb/yr) or greater, or a change is made

in any of the information submitted in

the Notification of Compliance Report,

the owner or operator shall submit a

report within 180 calendar days after

the process change. The report may be

submitted as part of the next summary

report required under § 63.10(e)(3) of

subpart A of this part. The report shall

include:

(i) A description of the process

change;

(ii) The results of the recalculation of

the emission rate;

(iii) Revisions to any of the

information reported in the original

Notification of Compliance Status under

§ 63.1367(a)(1); and

(iv) Information required by the

Notification of Compliance Status under

§ 63.1367(a)(1) for changes involving the

addition of processes or equipment.

(c) Equipment leaks. The owner or

operator of an affected source subject to

the standards in § 63.1362(e), shall

implement the reporting requirements

specified in § 63.182 of this part. Copies

of all reports shall be retained as records

for a period of 5 years, in accordance

with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(1) of

subpart A of this part.

(d) Emissions averaging. An owner or

operator of an affected source that

chooses to comply with the

requirements of § 63.1362(k) shall

submit all information as specified in

§ 63.1366(f) for all emission points

included in the emissions average. The
60600 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

owner or operator shall also submit to

the Administrator all information

specified in paragraph (b) of this section

for each emission point included in the

emissions average.

(1) The reports shall also include the

information listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)

through (iv) of this section:

(i) Any changes of the processes,

storage tanks, or waste management unit

included in the average.

(ii) The calculation of the debits and

credits for the reporting period.

(iii) Changes to the Implementation

Plan which affect the calculation

methodology of uncontrolled or

controlled emissions or the hazard or

risk equivalency determination.

(iv) Any changes to the parameters

monitored according to § 63.1365(h).

(2) Every 4th quarter report shall

include the results according to

§ 63.1366(f)(4) to demonstrate the

emissions averaging provisions of

§ 63.1362(k), § 63.1364(i), § 63.1365(h),

and § 63.1366(f) are satisfied.

(e) Heat exchange systems. If an

owner or operator of an affected source

invokes the delay of repair provisions

for a heat exchange system as specified

in § 63.1362(g)(5), the information in

paragraphs (e) (1) through (5) of this

section shall be submitted in the next

excess emissions report required in

paragraph (b) of this section. If the leak

remains unrepaired, the information

shall also be submitted in each

subsequent report, until repair of the

leak is reported.

(1) The presence of the leak and the

date the leak was detected.

(2) Whether or not the leak has been

repaired.

(3) The reason(s) for delay of repair.

If delay of repair is invoked due to the

reasons described in § 63.104(e)(2) of

subpart F of this part, documentation of

emissions estimates shall also be

submitted.

(4) If the leak remains unrepaired, the

expected date of repair.

(5) If the leak is repaired, the date the

leak was successfully repaired.

(f) An owner or operator who submits

an operating permit application instead

of an Implementation plan shall submit

the information specified in paragraphs

(e) (1) through (3) of this section with

the operating permit.

(1) The information specified in

§ 63.1366(f) for emission points

included in the emissions average;

(2) The information specified in

§ 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part, as

applicable; and

(3) The information specified in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as

applicable.

§ 63.1368 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(l) of the Act, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b) [Reserved]

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM

Reference to subpart A Applies to

subpart MMM Comment

§ 63.1(a)(1) .................................................. Yes ............... Additional terms are defined in § 63.1361.

§ 63.1(a)(2)–(3) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(4) .................................................. Yes ............... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to

subpart MMM.

§ 63.1(a)(5) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.1(a)(6)–(7) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(8) .................................................. No ................ Discusses State programs.

§ 63.1(a)(9) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1) .................................................. No ................ § 63.1360 specifies applicability.

§ 63.1(b)(2)–(3) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(1) .................................................. Yes ............... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies the applicability of each paragraph in subpart A

to sources subject to subpart MMM.

§ 63.1(c)(2) .................................................. No ................ Area sources are not subject to subpart MMM.

§ 63.1(c)(3) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(d) ...................................................... N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.1(e) ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.2 .......................................................... Yes ............... Additional terms are defined in § 63.1361; when overlap between subparts A and

MMM occurs, subpart MMM takes precedence.

§ 63.3 .......................................................... Yes ............... Other units used in subpart MMM are defined in that subpart.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(4) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.4(a)(5)–(c) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a) ...................................................... Yes ............... Except replace the terms ‘‘source’’ and ‘‘stationary source’’ in § 63.5(a)(1) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source’’.

§ 63.5(b)(1) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(2) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(5) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(6) .................................................. No ................ § 63.1360(g) specifies requirements for determining applicability of added PAI

equipment.

§ 63.5(c) ...................................................... N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.5(d)–(e) ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.5(f)(1) ................................................... Yes ............... Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.5(f)(1) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source’’.

§ 63.5(f)(2) ................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(2) ........................................... No ................ § 63.1363 specifies compliance dates.

§ 63.6(b)(3)–(4) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(5) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(6) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.6(b)(7) .................................................. Yes.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60601

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM—Continued

Reference to subpart A Applies to

subpart MMM Comment

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ........................................... Yes ............... Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source’’.

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ........................................... N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.6(c)(5) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(d) ...................................................... N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.6(e) ...................................................... Yes ............... Except § 63.1360 specifies that the standards in subpart MMM apply during startup

and shutdown for batch processes; therefore, these activities would not be covered in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

§ 63.6(f) ....................................................... Yes ............... Except § 63.1360 specifies that the standards in subpart MMM also apply during

startup and shutdown for batch processes.

§ 63.6(g) ...................................................... Yes ............... An alternative standard has been proposed; however, affected sources will have

the opportunity to demonstrate other alternatives to the Administrator.

§ 63.6(h) ...................................................... No ................ Subpart MMM does not contain any opacity or visible emissions standards.

§ 63.6(i)(1) ................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(2) ................................................... Yes ............... Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(2)(i) and (ii) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

§ 63.6(i)(3)–(14) .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(15) ................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.6(i)(16) ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(vi) ....................................... Yes ............... § 63.1367 specifies that test results must be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status due 150 days after the compliance date.

§ 63.7(a)(2)(vii)–(viii) ................................... N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.7(a)(2)(ix)–(c) ...................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(d) ...................................................... Yes ............... Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.7(d) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................................................. Yes ............... § 63.1364 contains test methods specific to PAI sources.

§ 63.7(e)(2) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(e)(3) .................................................. Yes ............... Except § 63.1364 specifies less than 3 runs for certain tests.

§ 63.7(e)(4) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(g)(1) .................................................. Yes ............... Except § 63.1367(a) specifies that the results of the performance test be submitted

with the Notification of Compliance Status report.

§ 63.7(g)(2) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.7(g)(3) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(h) ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(3) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(1) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(2) .................................................. No ................ § 63.1365 specifies CMS requirements.

§ 63.8(b)(3)–(c)(3) ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(4) .................................................. No ................ § 63.1365 specifies monitoring frequencies.

§ 63.8(c)(5)–(8) ........................................... No.

§ 63.8(d)–(f)(3) ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(4) ................................................... Yes ............... Except § 63.1367(b) specifies that requests may also be included in the

Precompliance report.

§ 63.8(f)(5) ................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ................................................... No ................ Subpart MMM does not require CEM’s.

§ 63.8(g) ...................................................... No ................ § 63.1365 specifies data reduction procedures.

§ 63.9(a)–(d) ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ...................................................... No.

§ 63.9(f) ....................................................... No ................ Subpart MMM does not contain opacity and visible emission standards.

§ 63.9(g) ...................................................... No.

§ 63.9(h)(1) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.9(h)(2)(i) ............................................. Yes ............... Except § 63.1367(a)(1) specifies additional information to include in the Notification

of Compliance Status report.

§ 63.9(h)(2)(ii) .............................................. No ................ § 63.1367 specifies the Notification of Compliance Status report is to be submitted

within 150 days after the compliance date.

§ 63.9(h)(3) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.9(h)(4) .................................................. N/A ............... Reserved.

§ 63.9(h)(5)–(6) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(i)–(j) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.10(a)–(b)(1) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2) ................................................ No ................ § 63.1366 specifies recordkeeping requirements.

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(c) .................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(1) ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(2) ................................................ Yes ............... Except § 63.1367(a) specifies that the results of the performance test be submitted

with the Notification of Compliance Status report.

§ 63.10(d)(3) ................................................ No ................ Subpart MMM does not include opacity and visible emission standards.

§ 63.10(d)(4) ................................................ Yes.
60602 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM—Continued

Reference to subpart A Applies to

subpart MMM Comment

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................................ Yes ............... Except that actions and reporting for batch processes do not apply during startup

and shutdown.

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2)(i) ...................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ............................................ No ................ Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring requirements.

§ 63.10(e)(3) ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(4) ................................................ No ................ Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring requirements.

§ 63.10(f) ..................................................... Yes.

§ 63.11–§ 63.15 ........................................... Yes.

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMM.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR PAI PRODUCTION

Emission source Applicability Requirement

Process vents ....................... Existing:

Processes having uncontrolled organic HAP emissions ≥0.15 Mg/yr.90% for organic HAP per process or ≤20 ppmv TOC.

Processes having uncontrolled HCI emissions ≥6.8

Mg/yr.

94% for HCI per process.

Individual process vents meeting TRE criteria that

have gaseous organic HAP emissions controlled to

less than 90% as of proposal date.

98% gaseous organic HAP control per vent or ≤20

ppmv TOC.

New:

Processes having uncontrolled organic HAP emissions ≥0.15 Mg/yr.98% for gaseous organic HAP per process or ≤20

ppmv TOC at control device outlet.

Processes having uncontrolled HCl emissions ≥6.8

Mg/yr and <191 Mg/yr.

94% for HCl per process.

Processes having uncontrolled HCl emissions

≥191 Mg/yr.

99.9% for HCl per process.

Storage tanks ....................... Existing: ≥0.113 Mg/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions:

• <76 m3 capacity ................................................... 41% control per tank.

• ≥76 m3 capacity ................................................... 95% control per tank.

New: ≥0.45 kg/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions .............. 98% control per tank or ≤20 ppmv TOC at control device outlet.

Wastewater a ......................... Existing: ≥10,000 ppmw Table 9 compounds at any

flowrate or ≥1,000 ppmw Table 9 compounds at ≥10

L/min.

Reduce concentration of total Table 9 compounds to

<50 ppmw (or other options).

New:

Same criteria for existing sources ........................... Reduce concentration of total Table 9 compounds to

<50 ppmw (or other options).

Total HAP load in wastewater POD streams

≥2,100 Mg/yr.

99% reduction of Table 9 compounds from all streams.

Equipment leaks ................... Subpart H ........................................................................ Subpart H with minor changes.

Bag dumps and product dryers.All .................................................................................... Particulate HAP concentration not to exceed 0.01 gr/

dscf.

Heat exchange systems ....... Each heat exchange system used to cool process

equipment in PAI manufacturing operations.

Monitoring and leak repair program as in HON.

aTable 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.

[FR Doc. 97–29149 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P