58352 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334; FRL–8720–8] 

RIN 2060–AM19 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for nine area source 

categories in the chemical 

manufacturing sector: Agricultural 

Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Production, Industrial 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, 

Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments 

Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic 

Materials and Resins Manufacturing, 

Pharmaceutical Production, and 

Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The 

proposed standards and associated 

requirements for the nine area source 

categories are combined in one subpart. 

The proposed emissions standards for 

new and existing sources are based on 

EPA’s determination regarding the 

generally available control technology 

or management practices for the nine 

area source categories. EPA is coproposing an alternative to the 

requirements for process vents emitting 

metal hazardous air pollutants. The 

alternative would set a higher size 

threshold for large metal hazardous air 

pollutant process vents. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 5, 2008, unless a 

public hearing is requested by October 

16, 2008. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rule, written comments must 

be received by November 20, 2008. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions must be received by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) on or before November 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0334, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service: send 

comments to: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Sources Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. We 

request that a separate copy also be sent 

to the contact person identified below 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center, Public Reading Room, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0334. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources Docket at 

the EPA Docket and Information Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Randy McDonald, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

5402; fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address: mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. 

The information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for the Proposed 

Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What area source categories are affected 

by the proposed standards? 

C. How did we gather information for this 

proposed standard? 

D. What are the production processes, 

emission points, and available controls? 

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my 

source? 

B. When must I comply with the proposed 

standards? 

C. What are the proposed emissions 

standards? 

D. What are the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements? 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we subcategorize emission 

sources? 

B. How did we determine GACT? 

C. How did we select compliance 

requirements? 

D. Why did we decide to exempt these area 

source categories from title V permitting 

requirements? 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58353 

1The affected source is the chemical 

manufacturing operations at area sources in one of 

the nine source categories subject to this proposed 

rule. Chemical manufacturing operations include 

all process equipment and activities that process, 

use, produce, or generate any of the HAP listed in 

Table 1 of this subpart. Chemical manufacturing 

operations also includes all storage tanks, transfer 

racks, cooling tower systems, wastewater systems, 

and equipment associated with the production of 

chemicals at an area source subject to the proposed 

rule. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action are shown in the table below. 

This proposed rule applies to chemical 

manufacturing operations at any of nine 

chemical manufacturing area source 

categories that process, use, produce, or 

generate any of the following hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP): 1,3-butadiene; 1,3- 

dichloropropene; acetaldehyde; 

chloroform; ethylene dichloride; 

methylene chloride; hexachlorobenzene; 

hydrazine; quinoline; or compounds of 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, or nickel. If the proposed 

standards are applicable to a chemical 

manufacturing area source, the 

standards apply to all organic HAP 

emissions and all metal HAP emissions 

from all chemical manufacturing 

operations at the area source. The 

proposed standards do not apply to 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., 

hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and 

hydrogen fluoride) at affected sources,1

except when these HAP are generated in 

combustion-based emission control 

devices that are used to meet the 

proposed standards for organic HAP. 

For additional information about 

applicability provisions, see section 

III.A of this preamble. 

Industry category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Chemical manufacturing.325 Chemical manufacturing area sources that process, use, or produce any of the HAP subject to this subpart except for: (1) Production operations classified in NAICS 325222, 325314, or 325413; (2) production operations 

subject to standards for other listed area source categories 2 in NAICS 325; (3) certain fabricating operations; 

(4) manufacture of photographic film, paper, and plate where material is coated or contains chemicals (only 

the manufacture of the photographic chemicals would be regulated); and (5) manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium chloride, radium luminous compounds, strontium, and uranium. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2All of the other source categories in NAICS 325 for which other standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production, Chemical 

Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and Allied 

Coatings, and Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing. 

Area sources in NAICS 325 not 

specifically identified in the chart above 

are affected by this action. To determine 

whether your chemical manufacturing 

area source would be regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 

of subpart VVVVVV (NESHAP for 

Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources). 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative as listed in 

40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 

Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed rule by October 16, 2008, we 

will hold a public hearing on October 

21, 2008. If you are interested in 

attending the public hearing, contact 

Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541–7946 to 

verify that a hearing will be held. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held at 

10 a.m. at the EPA’s Environmental 

Research Center Auditorium, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 

nearby. 

II. Background Information for the 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to establish 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

both major and area sources of HAP that 

are listed for regulation under CAA 

section 112(c). A major source emits or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58354 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

has the potential to emit 10 tons per 

year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 

25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. An area source is a stationary 

source that is not a major source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, 

as a result of emissions of area sources, 

pose the greatest threat to public health 

in the largest number of urban areas. 

EPA implemented this provision in 

1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). 

Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA 

identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, 

and these HAP are referred to as the ‘‘30 

urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) requires 

EPA to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to ensure 

that area sources representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. We 

implemented these requirements 

through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A 

primary goal of the Strategy is to 

achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 

incidence attributable to HAP emitted 

from stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices by such sources 

to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ Additional information on 

generally available control technologies 

or management practices (GACT) is 

found in the Senate report on the 

legislation (Senate report Number 101– 

228, December 20, 1989), which 

describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have many small 

businesses. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as we have 

already noted, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are proposing these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for 10 area 

source categories listed pursuant to 

section 112(c)(3) and (k) by December 

15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 

01–1537, D.D.C., March 2006). As part 

of our effort to meet this deadline, we 

are proposing in this action the 

NESHAP for the nine area source 

categories that are described in section 

II.B of this preamble. Another 

rulemaking will include standards for 

the remaining source category that is 

due in December 2008. 

B. What area source categories are 

affected by the proposed standards? 

This proposed NESHAP affects 

chemical manufacturing operations at 

nine area source categories: (1) 

Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing; (2) Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Production; (3) Industrial 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; (4) 

Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing; (5) Inorganic Pigments 

Manufacturing; (6) Miscellaneous 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing; (7) 

Plastic Materials and Resins 

Manufacturing; (8) Pharmaceutical 

Production; and (9) Synthetic Rubber 

Manufacturing. The inclusion of each of 

these source categories on the section 

112(c)(3) area source category list is 

based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA 

used 1990 as the baseline year for that 

listing. In this preamble and proposed 

rule we refer to the nine source 

categories collectively as chemical 

manufacturing area sources. 

Descriptions of the nine source 

categories are as follows: 

Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing. The agricultural 

chemicals and pesticides manufacturing 

source category is designated by NAICS 

codes 325311 (nitrogenous fertilizer 

manufacturing), 325312 (phosphatic 

fertilizer manufacturing), and 325320 

(pesticide and other agricultural 

chemical manufacturing). Products of 

this industry include nitrogenous and 

phosphatic fertilizer materials including 

anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid, 

ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, 

urea, phosphoric acid, superphosphates, 

ammonium phosphates, and calcium 

metaphosphates. The source category 

also includes the formulation and 

preparation of ready-to-use agricultural 

and household pest control chemicals 

from technical chemicals or 

concentrates, the production of 

concentrates which require further 

processing before use as agricultural 

pesticides, and the manufacturing or 

formulating of other agricultural 

chemicals such as minor or trace 

elements and soil conditioners. 

Organic Chemical Production. The 

cyclic crude and intermediate 

production, industrial organic chemical 

manufacturing, and miscellaneous 

organic chemical manufacturing source 

categories are discussed collectively 

because there is considerable overlap in 

the NAICS codes that apply to these 

source categories. These source 

categories are designated by NAICS 

codes 32511 (petrochemical 

manufacturing), 325132 (synthetic 

organic dye and pigment 

manufacturing), 32519 (other basic 

organic chemical manufacturing), 

325221 (cellulosic organic fiber 

manufacturing), and 3256 (soap, 

cleaning compound, and toilet 

preparation manufacturing). The source 

category also includes organic gases 

designated by NAICS code 325120 

(industrial gas manufacturing), and it 

includes production of chemicals such 

as explosives and photographic 

chemicals designated by NAICS code 

3259 (other chemical product and 

preparation manufacturing). 

Raw materials for this industry 

include, for example, refined petroleum 

chemicals, coal tars, and wood. The 

industry manufactures a wide variety of 

final products as well as numerous 

chemicals that are used as feedstocks to 

produce these final products and 

products in other chemical 

manufacturing source categories. 

Examples of types of products include 

solvents, organic dyes and pigments, 

plasticizers, alcohols, detergents, and 

flavorings. 

Industrial Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing. The industrial inorganic 

chemical manufacturing source category 

includes manufacturing of inorganic 

gases that are designated by NAICS code 

325120 (industrial gas manufacturing), 

manufacturing of inorganic dyes that are 

designated by NAICS code 325131 

(inorganic dye and pigment 

manufacturing), and most 

manufacturing designated by NAICS 

code 32518 (other basic inorganic 

chemical manufacturing). Exceptions to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58355 

production designated by NAICS code 

32518 include carbon black and 

mercury cell chlor-alkali production, 

which are separate source categories. 

Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing. 

Inorganic pigments are part of NAICS 

code 325131 (Inorganic Dye and 

Pigment Manufacturing). The majority 

of inorganic pigments are oxides, 

sulfides, oxide hydroxides, silicates, 

sulfates, or carbonates that normally 

consist of single component particles. 

The inorganic pigment manufacturing 

processes can generally be divided 

between those that use partial 

combustion and those that use pure 

pyrolysis. Inorganic pigments generally 

are used to impart colors to a variety of 

compounds. They may also impart 

properties of rust inhibition, rigidity, 

and abrasion resistance. Inorganic 

pigments are generally insoluble and 

remain unchanged physically and 

chemically when mixed with a carrier. 

Pigment manufacturers supply 

inorganic colors in a variety of forms 

including powders, pastes, granules, 

slurries, and suspensions. Pigments are 

used in the manufacture of paints and 

stains, printing inks, plastics, synthetic 

textiles, paper, cosmetics, contact 

lenses, soaps, detergents, wax, modeling 

clay, chalks, crayons, artists’ colors, 

concrete, masonry products, and 

ceramics. 

Pharmaceutical Production. The 

pharmaceutical manufacturing source 

category consists of chemical 

production operations that produce 

drugs and medication. These operations 

include chemical synthesis (deriving a 

drug’s active ingredient) and chemical 

formulation (producing a drug in its 

final form). The source category is 

designated by NAICS codes 325411 

(medicinal and botanical 

manufacturing), 325412 (pharmaceutical 

preparation manufacturing), and 325414 

(biological product, except diagnostic, 

manufacturing). 

Plastic Materials and Resins 

Manufacturing. This source category is 

designated by NAICS code 325211 

(plastics material and resin 

manufacturing). Examples of products 

in this source category include epoxy 

resins, nylon resins, phenolic resins, 

polyesters, polyethylene resins, and 

styrene resins. The source category does 

not include polyvinyl chloride and 

copolymers production, which is a 

separate source category. 

Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The 

synthetic rubber manufacturing source 

category is designated by NAICS code 

325212 (synthetic rubber 

manufacturing). Facilities in this source 

category manufacture synthetic rubber 

or vulcanizable elastomers by 

polymerization or copolymerization. For 

this source category, an elastomer is 

defined as a rubber-like material capable 

of vulcanization, such as copolymers of 

butadiene and styrene, copolymers of 

butadiene and acrylonitrile, 

polybutadienes, chloroprene rubbers, 

and isobutylene-isoprene copolymers. 

We listed Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Production, Industrial 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, 

Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and 

Resins Manufacturing, and Synthetic 

Rubber Manufacturing as area source 

categories under CAA section 112(c)(3) 

as part of the 1999 Integrated Urban 

Strategy (64 FR 38721, July 19, 1999). 

On June 26, 2002, we amended the area 

source category list by adding source 

categories, including Agricultural 

Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing, and 

Pharmaceutical Production (67 FR 

43112, 43113). On November 22, 2002, 

we added Inorganic Pigments 

Manufacturing to the area source 

category list (67 FR 70427, 70428). 

These nine area source categories 

encompass nearly all of the chemical 

manufacturing industry described in 

NAICS 325. 

The urban HAP that must be regulated 

at chemical manufacturing area sources 

to achieve the section 112(c)(3) 

requirement to regulate 90 percent of 

urban HAP are: 

• 1,3-butadiene • methylene chloride 

• 1,3- 

dichloropropene 

• hexachlorobenzene 

• acetaldehyde • hydrazine 

• chloroform • quinoline 

• ethylene dichloride • HAP metals: compounds of arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel 

These urban HAP are hereafter 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP’’. The organic 

HAP and hydrazine, which is controlled 

in the same manner as the organic HAP, 

are hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘chemical manufacturing organic urban 

HAP’’. The metal HAP are hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘chemical 

manufacturing metal urban HAP.’’ 

Based on information in the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), the Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI), and other 

supplemental information, we estimate 

that about 1,700 facilities are chemical 

manufacturing area sources. 

Approximately 450 of these area sources 

emit at least one of the chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP. We estimate 

that, collectively, the chemical 

manufacturing area sources emit about 

450 tpy of the chemical manufacturing 

organic urban HAP (including 0.4 tpy of 

hydrazine) and 51 tpy of the chemical 

manufacturing metal urban HAP. Total 

organic and metal HAP emissions from 

the 450 chemical manufacturing area 

sources that emit any of the chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP are estimated 

to be about 1,450 tons/yr. 

C. How did we gather information for 

this proposed standard? 

We gathered information for this 

proposed rule from the 2002 NEI, the 

2002 and 2004 TRI; company Web sites, 

published literature, and current State 

and Federal regulations. 

We developed an initial list of area 

sources in these categories based on 

facilities in the 2002 NEI database that 

were designated as area sources and 

classified with any of the SIC codes for 

chemical manufacturing. We added 

facilities classified as major sources in 

the NEI database to the list of area 

sources if reported emissions were 

much less than major source threshold, 

and no other information was available 

to confirm the facility as a major source. 

We also reviewed the TRI database and 

we identified facilities classified with 

any of the chemical manufacturing 

standard industrial classification (SIC) 

codes that had emissions less than half 

the major source thresholds and added 

these facilities to the list of area sources 

if they were not also listed in the NEI 

database. We also removed facilities 

from the list based on information from 

permits, company Web sites, and other 

available resources that showed a 

facility was closed, did not manufacture 

chemicals, or is a major source already 

subject to MACT standards. 

Emission records in the NEI database 

were determined to be applicable to 

chemical manufacturing operations if 

the source classification code (SCC) was 

specific to one of the chemical 

manufacturing industries (e.g., 

pharmaceuticals manufacturing). We 

considered other records to be 

applicable if the SIC code or the NEI 

database MACT code was applicable for 

the chemical manufacturing industry, 

and the SCC was not clearly for nonchemical manufacturing operations 

such as external combustion or solvent 

cold cleaners. 

We found that many of the records in 

the NEI could not be readily assigned to 

one of the six types of emission points 

subject to the proposed rule. Therefore, 

to estimate emissions by emission point 

we used only the total organic HAP 

emissions and total metal HAP 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

emissions (and corresponding urban 

HAP fractions) for each facility. We then 

disaggregated the total organic HAP 

emissions per facility to process vents, 

storage tanks, equipment leaks, and 

wastewater systems assuming the 

average distribution for major sources 

also applies to area sources. We 

estimated organic HAP emissions from 

transfer operations and cooling towers 

separately. 

Although emissions from transfer 

operations may have been included in 

the NEI data, information from major 

sources indicates that these emissions 

are small relative to emissions from the 

other emission points. Furthermore, 

many chemical manufacturing facilities 

do not ship liquids containing organic 

HAP by rail or tank truck. Therefore, we 

determined it was simpler to estimate 

emissions from transfer operations 

separately. To estimate these emissions, 

we assumed half of the area sources that 

emit organic HAP have transfer 

operations and used the model transfer 

racks that were developed for facilities 

that are subject to the National Emission 

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(SOCMI) for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater, commonly known as the 

‘‘hazardous organic NESHAP’’ (HON) in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart G. Because the 

estimated emissions are so small, the 

impact of adding them to the NEI 

emissions estimate of nationwide 

emissions from the source category is 

negligible. 

Few NEI records were clearly for 

cooling towers, and most of those 

focused on chlorine emissions, 

presumably from the use of biocides. 

Organic HAP emissions from cooling 

towers occur only as a result of a 

malfunction in heat exchange 

equipment that allows process fluid to 

leak into the recirculating cooling water 

and then volatilize as the contaminated 

water falls through the cooling tower. 

Because the emissions are the result of 

malfunctions, we assumed that they are 

not included in the NEI. Most area 

sources also are not monitoring cooling 

tower systems for leaks. However, if 

operation at area sources is similar to 

operation at major sources, it is likely 

that cooling tower systems are a 

significant source of organic HAP 

emissions. Therefore, we estimated 

emissions from cooling tower systems 

based on typical recirculation rates for 

cooling towers at chemical 

manufacturing sources and assumed 

leak frequencies and concentrations. 

We assumed metal HAP are emitted 

only from process vents. These 

emissions may be in either vapor or 

particulate form depending on the 

temperature of the unit operation. They 

are not emitted from other emission 

points because emissions from other 

emission points depend largely on 

evaporation of the pollutant. As metalbased compounds have very low vapor 

pressures, they are unlikely to be 

emitted in significant amounts from 

other emission points. 

We reviewed State and other Federal 

regulations that apply to the area and 

major sources in the source categories 

for information to establish 

subcategories and control requirements 

for some of the emission points. For 

example, the new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for volatile organic 

liquid storage vessels in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb apply to storage tanks at 

some area sources. Similarly, a 

regulation established by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

which requires monitoring of 

recirculating water in cooling tower 

systems, also applies to some area 

sources. We also reviewed standards for 

other source categories that would be 

appropriate for and transferable to 

operations at chemical manufacturing 

area sources as well. For example, we 

determined that management practices 

applicable to gasoline loading racks at 

gasoline distribution area sources are 

equally feasible for transfer operations 

at chemical manufacturing area sources. 

D. What are the production processes, 

emission points, and available controls? 

The chemical manufacturing industry 

produces a wide variety of chemicals 

using processes that involve numerous 

types of unit operations. Example 

operations include reaction, mixing, 

fermentation, extraction, distillation, 

crystallization, washing, filtering, 

drying, grinding, and calcining. 

Pollutants are emitted from these 

operations through process vents. 

Process vent emissions are generated 

from a variety of activities including 

equipment vessel purges with air or 

nitrogen, vapor displacement due to 

filling a vessel with liquid, gas 

evolution from reactions, applying a 

vacuum to a vessel, heating the contents 

of a vessel, depressurizing a vessel, and 

drying a solid product. The proposed 

rule would regulate three types of 

process vents: Continuous process 

vents; batch process vents; and metal 

HAP process vents. Pollutants are also 

emitted from five other types of 

equipment that are associated with or 

support a process: Storage tanks, cooling 

tower systems, equipment leaks, transfer 

operations, and wastewater systems. 

Each of the types of emission points and 

potential controls are described in the 

following sections. 

Continuous process vents. A 

continuous process vent is defined as 

the point of discharge to the atmosphere 

(or the point of entry into a control 

device, if any) of a gas stream that meets 

three conditions: (1) It contains organic 

HAP, (2) some or all of the gas stream 

originates from a unit operation that 

operates continuously, and (3) the gas 

stream flow is continuous. Typical 

controls include add-on control devices 

such as thermal incinerators, 

condensers, and carbon adsorbers. 

Batch process vents. A batch process 

vent is defined as a point of discharge 

from a single unit operation or from a 

common header that connects multiple 

unit operations through which an 

organic HAP-containing gas stream is, or 

has the potential to be, released to the 

atmosphere. Specifically excluded from 

the proposed definition of a batch 

process vent are continuous process 

vents and any other emission points that 

are subject to other standards in the 

proposed rule (e.g., a storage tank or 

wastewater treatment unit), gas streams 

routed to a fuel gas system, and certain 

elephant trunk systems. Typical 

controls include add-on control devices 

such as thermal incinerators, 

condensers, and carbon adsorbers. 

Metal HAP process vents. A metal 

HAP process vent is defined as the point 

of discharge to the atmosphere (or inlet 

to a control device, if any) of a metal 

HAP-containing gas stream from any 

unit operation in chemical 

manufacturing operations at an affected 

source. If both metal HAP and organic 

HAP are emitted, a metal HAP process 

vent may also be a continuous process 

vent or batch process vent. Typical 

controls include add-on control devices 

that control particulate matter (PM), 

such as fabric filters and electrostatic 

precipitators. 

Storage tank. A storage tank is a tank 

or other vessel that is used to store 

organic or inorganic HAP that are used 

in or produced by the chemical 

manufacturing operations, except for the 

following: Vessels permanently attached 

to motor vehicles, pressure vessels, 

vessels storing organic liquids that 

contain HAP only as impurities, 

wastewater storage tanks, and process 

tanks. Primary uses of storage tanks are 

to store raw materials, products, and 

wastes. Bottoms receivers and surge 

control vessels are also considered to be 

storage tanks. Emissions from storage 

tanks occur as a result of vapor 

displacement when the tank is being 

filled and as a result of vapor expansion 

due to diurnal temperature changes. 

Numerous controls are available for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58357 

storage tanks. These include the use of 

internal or external floating roofs, vapor 

balancing to the tank truck or other 

vessel from which the storage tank is 

filled, and routing emissions through a 

closed-vent system to a control device 

such as a thermal incinerator. 

Cooling tower systems. Cooling towers 

are used to cool warm water from heat 

exchangers that is then recirculated to 

the heat exchangers. Process fluid that 

leaks into the recirculating water in the 

heat exchanger may be volatilized and 

emitted to the atmosphere in the cooling 

tower. Controls generally involve a 

monitoring program to identify elevated 

levels of organic compounds or a 

surrogate for the organic compounds in 

the recirculating water. When a leak is 

detected, the defect in the heat 

exchanger must be repaired to eliminate 

the leak and the emissions. 

Equipment Leaks. Equipment leaks 

occur from pumps, the packing around 

valve stems in valves, flanges and 

connectors that are not tight, pressure 

relief valves, open-ended lines, and 

sampling connections. For pumps, 

valves, and connectors, controls consist 

of leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

programs in which the equipment is 

inspected on a specified schedule. The 

inspections may be either sensory-based 

or instrument-based. The programs also 

define a leak differently, but all require 

repair of detected leaks. Controls for 

other types of equipment usually 

involve the use of certain types of 

equipment. For example, open-ended 

lines must be capped, and pressure 

relief devices must be equipped with 

rupture disks or connected to a closedvent system that routes releases to a 

control device such as a flare. 

Transfer operations. Transfer 

operations are defined as the loading 

into tank trucks and rail cars of organic 

liquids that contain one or more organic 

HAP, as defined in Section 112(b) of the 

CAA, from a loading rack (also known 

as a transfer rack) at an affected source. 

A loading rack is the system used to fill 

tank trucks and rail cars at a single 

geographic site and includes the 

associated pumps, meters, shutoff 

valves, relief valves, and other piping 

and valves. One widely used emission 

control technique is submerged loading, 

which consists of either filling through 

a drop tube that extends from the top of 

the vessel being loaded to within a few 

inches of the bottom of the vessel or by 

bottom loading through a built-in fill 

connection near the bottom of the 

vessel. Another available control is 

vapor balancing, which routes displaced 

vapors from the tank truck or railcar 

back to the storage tank from which it 

is being loaded. Routing displaced 

vapors through a closed-vent system to 

a control device is another option. 

Wastewater systems. Wastewater is 

defined as water that contains at least 

one of the 76 organic HAP listed in 

Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, 

and is discarded from a chemical 

manufacturing process or control 

device, except for the following: (1) 

Stormwater from segregated sewers; (2) 

water from fire-fighting and deluge 

systems, including testing of such 

systems; (3) spills; (4) water from safety 

showers; (5) samples of a size not 

greater than reasonably necessary for the 

method of analysis that is used; (6) 

equipment leaks; (7) wastewater drips 

from procedures such as disconnecting 

hoses after cleaning lines; and (8) 

noncontact cooling water. Wastewater 

includes both process wastewater and 

maintenance wastewater. Process 

wastewater is wastewater which, during 

manufacturing or processing, comes into 

direct contact with or results from the 

production or use of any raw material, 

intermediate product, finished product, 

by-product, or waste product. 

Maintenance wastewater is wastewater 

that is generated by the draining of 

process fluid from components in a 

chemical manufacturing process into an 

individual drain system prior to or 

during maintenance activities. A 

wastewater system is the equipment in 

which the wastewater is conveyed and 

treated. Aerobic biological treatment to 

degrade the organic compounds is the 

most common type of treatment. Other 

types of treatment that remove organics 

include anaerobic biological treatment, 

incineration of the wastewater, and 

steam or air stripping followed by 

condensation or other techniques to 

recover or destroy the stripped 

compounds. Controls also include some 

form of emission suppression 

techniques between the discharge from 

the process and the treatment unit. 

Examples of emission suppression 

include water seals on individual 

drains, covers on junction boxes and 

holding or treatment tanks, and closed 

sewer lines. Some regulations also 

prohibit the discharge of multi-phase 

wastewater streams; these streams must 

be separated into a water layer and one 

or more organic layers by gravity 

separation techniques, and only the 

water phase may be discharged to the 

wastewater system. 

III. Summary of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to 

my source? 

This proposed NESHAP applies to 

each existing or new facility that is an 

area source of HAP and has chemical 

manufacturing operations that process, 

use, produce, or generate any of the 15 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP. 

Chemical manufacturing operations 

would be defined as the facility-wide 

collection of chemical manufacturing 

processing equipment and associated 

storage tanks, cooling tower systems, 

transfer operations, and wastewater 

systems. The chemical manufacturing 

operations are the affected source. 

The nine chemical manufacturing 

area source categories include most of 

the source categories that are classified 

under NAICS 325. The proposed rule, 

therefore, specifies applicability based 

on all chemical manufacturing 

operations that are used to produce 

chemicals classified under NAICS 325 

except as described below. We believe 

this approach is more straightforward 

than listing all of the processes or 

NAICS codes that are subject because it 

is a more concise list, it ensures that no 

processes are inadvertently left off the 

list, and it automatically applies to new 

processes developed in the future. 

Manufacturing operations classified by 

NAICS codes 325222, 325314, and 

325413 are not subject to this proposal 

because these operations were not 

included in the listing of source 

categories as part of the Urban Strategy. 

The proposal does not apply to mercury 

cell chlor-alkali plants, chemical 

preparations, paint and allied products, 

polyvinyl chloride and copolymers 

production, carbon black, chemical 

manufacturing: chromium compounds, 

and acrylic and modacrylic fibers 

production, because those area source 

categories are subject to other section 

112(d) NESHAP. In addition, specific 

manufacturing processes or chemical 

processes that are not subject to the 

proposed rule include: 

(1) Manufacture of radioactive 

elements or isotopes, radium chloride, 

radium luminous compounds, 

strontium, and uranium; 

(2) Manufacture of photographic film, 

paper, and plate where the material is 

coated with or contains chemicals; 

(3) Fabricating operations (such as 

spinning or compressing a solid 

polymer into its end use); compounding 

operations (in which blending, melting, 

and resolidifying of a solid polymer 

product occur for the purpose of 

incorporating additives, colorants, or 

stabilizers); extrusion and drawing 

operations (converting an already 

produced solid polymer into a different 

shape by melting or mixing the polymer 

and then forcing it or pulling it through 

an orifice to create an extruded product) 

are generally not subject to this 

proposal. Such operations are subject if 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58358 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

they involve processing with a HAP 

solvent or if an intended purpose of the 

operation is to remove residual HAP 

monomer; 

(4) Research and development 

facilities as defined in section 112(c)(7) 

of the CAA; 

(5) Quality assurance/quality control 

laboratories; 

(6) Boilers and incinerators (not used 

to comply with emission standards in 

the proposed rule), chillers and other 

refrigerator systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not 

directly involved (i.e., they operate 

within a closed system and materials are 

not combined with process fluids) in the 

processing of raw materials or the 

manufacturing of a product or 

intermediates used in production of the 

product are not considered chemical 

manufacturing operations. The above 

operations are not covered by this rule 

because they were not part of the 

inventory on which we based the listing 

for the nine area source categories at 

issue in this rule. 

To be subject to the proposed 

standards, the chemical manufacturing 

operations also must process, use, 

produce, or generate any of the 15 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP. If 

the proposed standards are applicable to 

a chemical manufacturing area source, 

the proposed standards apply to all 

organic HAP emissions and all metal 

HAP emissions from chemical 

manufacturing operations at the area 

source. We are proposing that the 

standards for each type of emission 

point apply to all of the emission points 

of that type in an affected source, 

including those that do not emit a 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP 

(e.g., an area source may have two 

storage tanks, one containing methanol 

and the other containing methylene 

chloride, and, under the proposed rule, 

both would be part of the affected 

source and subject to the storage tank 

standards). 

We recognize that standards limited 

to the emission points that emit the 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP at 

the nine area source categories would be 

sufficient to satisfy the requirement in 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), that EPA 

regulate sufficient source categories to 

account for 90 percent of the urban HAP 

emissions. However, section 112 of the 

CAA does not prohibit the Agency from 

regulating other HAP emitted from area 

sources listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3). Section 112(d)(5) states that 

for area sources listed pursuant to 

section 112(c), the Administrator may, 

in lieu of section 112(d)(2) ‘‘MACT’’ 

standards, promulgate standards or 

requirements ‘‘applicable to sources’’ 

which provide for the use of GACT or 

management practices ‘‘to reduce 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ 

This provision does not limit the 

Agency’s authority to regulating only 

those urban HAP emissions for which 

the category is needed to achieve the 90 

percent requirement in section 

112(c)(3). 

We are proposing to apply the 

standards in this manner for several 

reasons. The management practices 

proposed in the rule are equally 

effective at controlling emissions of 

HAP other than the chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP and there is 

little, if any, additional cost for 

implementing those management 

practices for all emissions sources (e.g., 

for process vents the annual cost of the 

management practices is less than $300/ 

yr). In addition, where add-on controls 

are required under this rule, those 

controls will reduce not only emissions 

of the chemical manufacturing HAP, but 

also emissions of the organic and metal 

HAP that are not chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP. Applying 

the proposed standards only to the 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP 

would require the facility to speciate 

HAP as opposed to measuring total HAP 

when demonstrating compliance. 

Furthermore, many facilities route 

emissions from process vessels to 

common vents and it would not be 

practical to control only urban HAP 

emissions from those vents. We are also 

proposing to apply the standard to all 

HAP because many of the area sources 

emit a significant amount of HAP in 

addition to the chemical manufacturing 

urban HAP (for example, the nationwide 

ratio of total organic HAP to chemical 

manufacturing organic HAP at affected 

sources is more than 3:1), and all HAP 

are hazardous to human health and the 

environment. 

We have determined that sources will 

not have to install different controls or 

implement different management 

practices to implement the proposed 

standards for all HAP and, as part of the 

GACT analysis, we have found that the 

costs of applying the proposed 

standards to all HAP are reasonable. For 

all of these reasons, we propose to apply 

these standards to all chemical 

manufacturing operations at the 

chemical manufacturing area source. We 

request comment on the environmental, 

cost, and economic impacts of this 

approach. 

Controlling halogenated HAP 

emissions by burning in a combustion 

device, as the proposed rule provides, 

will generate hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP. Several NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subparts G, GGG, MMM, and 

FFFF) require control of hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP when a 

combustion device is used to control 

halogenated vent streams. The proposed 

standards apply to hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, 

chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride), but 

only when they are generated in a 

combustion device that is used to meet 

a proposed standard. The proposed 

controls for the chemical manufacturing 

urban HAP generally would achieve 

little or no co-control of the hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP. Simply 

converting one HAP to another does not 

protect human health or the 

environment. Therefore, these byproducts of combustion are also subject 

to proposed standards. 

B. When must I comply with the 

proposed standards? 

Some facilities will have to design, 

purchase, and install add-on control 

equipment to meet the proposed 

requirements. We are therefore 

proposing that owners or operators of 

existing sources comply with all the 

requirements of the area source 

NESHAP by 3 years after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A new affected source 

would be required to comply by the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register or upon initial startup, 

whichever is later. 

Area sources subject to the rule would 

not be required to obtain a title V 

operating permit. Our reasons for 

exempting chemical manufacturing area 

sources from the requirement to obtain 

a title V permit are discussed in section 

IV.D of this preamble. 

C. What are the proposed emissions 

standards? 

We are proposing management 

practices as GACT for all process vents, 

storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer 

operations, and cooling tower systems. 

For specified subcategories, we are 

proposing management practices and 

emissions limitations or other 

requirements as GACT for continuous 

process vents, batch process vents, 

metal HAP process vents, cooling tower 

systems, and storage tanks. We are 

proposing emission standards that 

consist of two treatment requirements 

for one subcategory of wastewater 

streams, and we are proposing a single 

treatment requirement for a second 

subcategory of wastewater streams. All 

of the proposed standards are the same 

for new and existing affected sources. 

1. Continuous Process Vents 

As explained in section IV.A, we 

distinguished continuous process vents 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58359 

based on a total resource effectiveness 

(TRE) index value of 1, which we 

believe is a reasonable proxy for the size 

of the vent. Specifically, we created two 

subcategories for continuous process 

vents: Those continuous process vents 

with a TRE value less than or equal to 

one and those with a TRE greater than 

one. The TRE is a measure of HAP 

emissions and control costs and is 

normalized to a value of 1.0 for a costeffectiveness of $3,000 per ton of HAP 

reduction. Facilities would determine 

the TRE index value either at the point 

of discharge to the atmosphere or after 

the last recovery device using 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.115 

of the HON. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators implement management 

practices for all continuous process 

vents. The management practices 

consist of requirements to check the 

integrity of the process equipment once 

per quarter, to repair process equipment 

as necessary to eliminate leaks, and to 

operate the process equipment with all 

openings or access points covered or 

with closure mechanisms in the closed 

position, except as necessary for 

operator access. If a leak is detected, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

repair it within 15 calendar days of 

detection, unless a reasonable 

justification for delay exists and is 

documented. The owner or operator 

must provide notification of a delay in 

repair in the semiannual report. These 

management practices are the only 

proposed emission requirements for the 

subcategory of continuous process vents 

with a TRE value greater than 1. 

For the subcategory of continuous 

process vents with a TRE value less than 

or equal to 1, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator reduce emissions of 

organic HAP (including hydrazine) by 

95 percent by weight or greater or to 20 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) or 

less. Because flares achieve greater than 

95 percent reduction, the owner or 

operator may reduce emissions of 

organic HAP by routing emissions 

through a closed vent system to a flare. 

However, the proposed rule does not 

allow a flare to be used to control 

halogenated emission streams. As an 

alternative to demonstrating compliance 

with the standards specified above, the 

proposed rule allows an owner or 

operator to comply with the alternative 

standard in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF (i.e., the miscellaneous organic 

NESHAP [MON]). Under the alternative 

standard, an owner or operator would 

be required to route the process vent 

streams through a closed vent system to 

a control device that meets a specified 

outlet concentration and demonstrate 

compliance using a continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS). 

For a combustion device, the proposed 

rule requires that organic HAP 

emissions be reduced to an outlet 

concentration of 20 ppmv measured as 

total organic compounds (TOC), and 

hydrogen halide or halogen HAP 

generated in the combustion device be 

reduced to an outlet concentration of 20 

ppmv or less. For a noncombustion 

device, organic HAP would be reduced 

to an outlet concentration of 50 ppmv or 

less measured as total organic HAP. In 

the MON, this alternative is allowed for 

both continuous process vents and 

batch process vents and is equivalent to 

the 98 percent control requirement in 

the MON. The same alternative standard 

is in the NESHAP for pharmaceuticals 

production and pesticide active 

ingredient production (40 CFR part 63, 

subparts GGG and MMM). 

2. Batch Process Vents 

As explained in section IV.A, we 

considered the different sizes and types 

of batch process vents in chemical 

manufacturing operations and 

established subcategories based on 

annual emissions to reflect the 

combined factors. Specifically, we 

created two subcategories for batch 

process vents: Those batch process 

vents that emit 19,000 lb/yr or greater of 

organic HAP and those that emit less 

than 19,000 lb/yr of organic HAP. 

Facilities would determine annual 

emissions using test data or procedures 

in subparts GGG and FFFF of part 63 or 

estimating emissions based on the 

emissions for the worst-case batch 

process. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators implement management 

practices for all batch process vents. The 

management practices consist of 

requirements to check the integrity of 

the process equipment once per quarter, 

to repair process equipment as 

necessary to eliminate leaks, and to 

operate the process equipment with all 

openings or access points covered or 

with closure mechanisms in the closed 

position, except as necessary for 

operator access. If a leak is detected, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

repair it within 15 calendar days of 

detection, unless a reasonable 

justification for delay exists and is 

documented. The owner or operator 

must provide notification of a delay in 

repair in the semiannual report. These 

management practices are the only 

proposed emission requirements for the 

subcategory of batch process vents 

emitting less than 19,000 lb/yr of 

organic HAP. 

In addition to the management 

practices applicable to both 

subcategories, we are proposing for the 

subcategory of batch process vents with 

total uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions equal to or greater than 

19,000 lb/yr that the owner or operator 

either: (1) Reduce the collective 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

(including hydrazine) from the sum of 

all batch process vents within the 

chemical manufacturing operations by 

90 percent by weight or greater or to 20 

ppmv or less; (2) route emissions from 

batch process vents containing at least 

90 percent of the uncontrolled total 

organic HAP through a closed vent 

system to a flare (except for halogenated 

vent streams); or (3) comply with 

combinations of the requirements in 

items 1 and 2 for different groups of 

batch process vents. As an alternative, 

the proposed rule allows an owner or 

operator to comply with the alternative 

standard as described in section III.C.1 

of this preamble. These alternatives 

provide equivalent levels of emission 

control. 

Facilities would estimate the sum of 

the typical uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions for all emission episodes 

using equations and other procedures 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF and the National Emission 

Standards for Pharmaceuticals 

Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGG). The proposed rule includes 3 

alternatives to the requirement to 

estimate batch process vent emissions 

from each process. First, although actual 

emissions may vary from one batch to 

another for a given process, the 

proposed rule allows the owner or 

operator to estimate emissions for a 

typical batch and assume those 

emissions apply to each batch. Second, 

as an alternative to estimating emissions 

for a standard batch of each process, the 

proposed rule allows the owner or 

operator to determine emissions only for 

a typical batch in the process that has 

the highest emissions and assume that 

those emissions apply to batches in all 

other processes. Process knowledge, 

engineering assessment, or test data may 

be used to identify the worst case 

process. Third, if an owner or operator 

can demonstrate that organic HAP usage 

is less than 19,000 lb/yr and this is the 

only HAP in the process, then HAP 

emissions also must be less than 19,000 

lb/yr. Thus, the proposed rule does not 

require an owner or operator to estimate 

emissions if this condition is met. 

3. Metal HAP Process Vents 

As explained in section IV.A, we 

considered the different sizes and types 

of metal HAP process vents in chemical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58360 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturing operations and 

established subcategories based on 

annual emissions of metal HAP to 

reflect the combined factors. 

Specifically, we created two 

subcategories for metal HAP process 

vents based on a threshold level of 

emissions: Those metal HAP process 

vents that emit above the threshold as 

one subcategory and below the 

threshold as a second subcategory. We 

are co-proposing alternative process 

vent thresholds of 100 lb/yr and 400 lb/ 

yr of metal HAP. Facilities would 

determine the mass metal HAP 

emissions rate by using process 

knowledge, engineering assessments, or 

test data. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators implement management 

practices for all metal HAP process 

vents. The management practices 

consist of requirements to check the 

integrity of the process equipment once 

per quarter, to repair process equipment 

as necessary to eliminate leaks, and to 

operate the process equipment with all 

openings or access points covered or 

with closure mechanisms in the closed 

position, except as necessary for 

operator access. If a leak is detected, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

repair it within 15 calendar days of 

detection, unless a reasonable 

justification for delay exists and is 

documented. The owner or operator 

must provide notification of a delay in 

repair in the semiannual report. These 

management practices are the only 

proposed emission requirements for the 

subcategory of metal HAP process vents 

emitting below the threshold (less than 

100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr of metal HAP). 

In addition to the management 

practices applicable to both 

subcategories, we are proposing for the 

subcategory with total uncontrolled 

metal HAP emissions from metal HAP 

process vents equal to or greater the 

threshold (100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr of 

metal HAP) that the owner or operator 

reduce uncontrolled emissions of metal 

HAP by 95 percent by weight or greater. 

To determine whether the percent 

reduction requirement applies, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

determine and sum the emissions from 

all of the metal HAP process vents. The 

proposed rule allows the use of process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data to determine the mass emission 

rate. 

4. Storage Tanks 

As explained in section IV.A, we 

considered the different sizes of storage 

tanks and subcategorized on that basis. 

Specifically, we created two 

subcategories for storage tanks: Large 

storage tanks are those that meet the size 

and maximum true vapor pressure 

(MTVP) thresholds for control in the 

NSPS for volatile organic liquid storage 

vessels in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, 

and small storage tanks are those that do 

not meet the subpart Kb thresholds. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators implement management 

practices for all storage tanks that store 

organic HAP. The management practices 

consist of requirements to check the 

integrity of the storage tanks once per 

quarter, to repair tanks as necessary to 

eliminate leaks, and to operate the tanks 

with all openings or access points 

covered or with closure mechanisms in 

the closed position, except as necessary 

for operator access. If a leak is detected, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to repair it within 15 calendar days of 

detection, unless a reasonable 

justification for delay exists and is 

documented. The owner or operator 

must provide notification of a delay in 

repair in the semiannual report. These 

management practices are the only 

proposed emission requirements for the 

subcategory of small storage tanks. 

In addition to the management 

practices applicable to both 

subcategories, we propose that for the 

subcategory of large storage tanks that 

owners and operators comply with the 

control requirements in subpart Kb. The 

control options in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb are to operate and maintain 

a fixed roof in combination with an 

internal floating roof, use an external 

floating roof, or to route emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device that reduces organic HAP 

emissions by 95 percent or greater. 

5. Cooling Tower Systems 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators implement management 

practices for all cooling tower systems 

in which recirculating water is used in 

heat exchangers to cool process fluid 

that contains organic HAP. We are 

proposing a management practice for a 

subcategory of small cooling tower 

systems and an emission limit for a 

subcategory of large cooling tower 

systems. 

For the subcategory of small cooling 

tower systems, those with recirculating 

water flow rates less than 8,000 gal/min, 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator inspect the cooling water 

system quarterly for hydrocarbon odor, 

discolored water, or other evidence of 

hydrocarbons in the cooling water. In 

addition, the owner or operator would 

be required to prepare and operate in 

accordance with an operating and 

maintenance plan that describes actions 

to be taken in response to different 

inspection results. If a leak is detected, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to repair it (or remove the leaking heat 

exchanger from service) within 45 

calendar days of detection, unless a 

reasonable justification for delay exists 

and is documented. The owner or 

operator must provide notification of a 

delay in repair in the semiannual report. 

For the subcategory of large cooling 

tower systems, those with recirculating 

water rates of 8,000 gal/min or greater, 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator monitor the recirculating 

cooling water using a surrogate 

indicator of heat exchange system leaks 

as required in § 63.104(c) and (d) of the 

HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart F). These 

provisions would require the owner or 

operator to prepare and operate in 

accordance with a monitoring plan that 

documents the procedures that will be 

used to detect leaks of process fluids 

into the cooling water. The types of 

information to include in the plan 

would include a description of the 

parameter(s) to be monitored, rationale 

for why the selected parameter(s) will 

reliably indicate a leak, and the level 

that indicates a leak. When a leak is 

detected, the owner or operator would 

be required to repair it (or remove the 

leaking heat exchanger from service) 

within 45 calendar days of detection, 

unless delay of repair is allowed. Delay 

of repair would be allowed until the 

next shutdown if the owner or operator 

documents that emissions from 

shutdown for repair would cause greater 

emissions than estimated emissions 

from allowing the system to continue 

leaking until the scheduled shutdown. 

6. Equipment Leaks 

We are proposing that each owner or 

operator implement management 

practices for equipment leaks. The 

management practices consist of 

quarterly leak inspections of all 

equipment in organic HAP service. The 

term ‘‘equipment’’ applies to each 

pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection 

system, open ended valve or line, 

connector, and instrumentation system 

in chemical manufacturing operations. 

To be in organic HAP service, the 

equipment must either contain or 

contact a fluid (liquid or gas) that 

contains one or more of the organic HAP 

listed in or pursuant to section 112 of 

the CAA. Leak detection methods using 

sight, sound, and smell may be used. 

Under the proposed rule, repair or 

replacement of leaking equipment is 

required within 15 days after detection, 

or the reason for any delay of repair 

must be documented. The owner or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58361 

operator must provide notification of a 

delay in repair in the semiannual report. 

7. Transfer Operations 

We are proposing that each owner or 

operator of an affected source 

implement management practices for all 

transfer operations that involve transfer 

of material that contains organic HAP. 

We are proposing that each owner or 

operator implement management 

practices to minimize evaporation, clean 

up spills, and implement submerged 

loading. The proposed rule defines 

submerged loading as the use of a 

submerged fill pipe that discharges no 

more than 12 inches from the bottom of 

the cargo tank. 

8. Wastewater Systems 

We developed two subcategories of 

wastewater streams based on differences 

in the concentration of partially soluble 

HAP in the wastewater stream. One 

subcategory consists of wastewater 

streams with partially soluble HAP 

concentrations less than 10,000 parts 

per million by weight (ppmw), and the 

other consists of wastewater streams 

with concentrations equal to or greater 

than 10,000 ppmw. Partially soluble 

HAP are a subset of all organic HAP. 

They are less soluble in water than other 

organic HAP, and they are more easily 

separated from water. A list of partially 

soluble HAP that matches a list of 

partially soluble HAP in the MON is 

included in Table 3 of the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule requires an 

owner or operator to use any of the 

procedures in 40 CFR 63.144(b) of the 

HON to determine the partially soluble 

HAP concentration in each wastewater 

stream. Several options are allowed. For 

example, the owner or operator may 

calculate the concentration based on 

knowledge of the wastewater, using 

bench-scale or pilot-scale test data that 

is demonstrated to be representative of 

the actual wastewater, or by testing 

samples of the actual wastewater 

stream. 

For both subcategories we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

treat the wastewater onsite or discharge 

it to an offsite facility for treatment. In 

addition, for the subcategory of 

wastewater streams with partially 

soluble HAP concentrations equal to or 

greater than 10,000 ppmw, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

separate the stream into a water phase 

and one or more organic phases using a 

decanter or other equipment that 

operates on the principle of gravity 

separation. The water phase would then 

have to be treated as described above. 

The separated organic liquid may be 

sent back to the process or discarded as 

hazardous waste. Also, liquid waste 

from the process that consists only of 

organic compounds may not be sent to 

the wastewater system if any of the 

organic compounds in the wastewater 

stream are partially soluble HAP. 

D. What are the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements? 

1. Continuous Process Vents 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

management practices for continuous 

process vents, the owner or operator 

would conduct quarterly inspections 

during process operation to determine 

the integrity of the process vessels, 

identify and repair within 15 days any 

leaks, and ensure that covers are in 

place or closure mechanisms are in the 

closed position during process 

operation. 

The proposed rule incorporates by 

reference the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements in 40 CFR part 

63 subparts SS and FFFF for control 

devices, recovery devices, and closedvent systems used to meet the emission 

limit for continuous process vents. 

These procedures are summarized 

below. 

For each non-flare control device used 

to meet the percent reduction or outlet 

concentration emission limit for organic 

HAP emissions from continuous process 

vents, the owner or operator would be 

required to conduct a performance test 

to demonstrate initial compliance. The 

performance test would be conducted 

under representative operating 

conditions. To demonstrate continuous 

compliance, the owner or operator 

would monitor applicable operating 

parameters for the selected control 

device (including hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP control devices if control 

of a halogenated organic HAP is 

achieved using a combustion device). 

For each flare, the owner or operator 

would conduct a flare compliance 

assessment to demonstrate initial 

compliance, and continuously monitor 

applicable operating parameters to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

Continuous monitoring of applicable 

operating parameters is required if a 

recovery device is used to maintain the 

TRE index value at a level greater than 

1.0 and less than or equal to 4.0. 

The owner or operator would inspect 

for and repair leaks in each closed-vent 

system that is used to convey a gas 

stream from a continuous process vent 

to either a final recovery device or 

control device. Monitoring of bypass 

lines to identify periods when emissions 

are diverted from a control device or 

recovery device would also be required. 

Whenever a performance test is 

required, the owner or operator may 

choose to submit the results of a prior 

performance test to demonstrate initial 

compliance provided the prior test 

meets specified criteria. For example, 

the test must have been conducted 

within the past 5 years using the 

methods and procedures specified in 

the rule. Moreover, the owner or 

operator must demonstrate either that 

no process changes have been made 

since the test or that the results of the 

test with or without adjustments, 

reliably demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission standard 

despite process changes. Provisions are 

included in the proposed rule for 

submitting prior written notification of 

intent to use the previous data. 

2. Batch Process Vents 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

management practices for batch process 

vents, the owner or operator would 

conduct quarterly inspections during 

process operation to determine the 

integrity of the process vessels, identify 

and repair within 15 days any leaks, and 

ensure that covers are in place or 

closure mechanisms are in the closed 

position during process operation. 

The proposed rule incorporates by 

reference the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements in 40 CFR part 

63 subparts SS and FFFF for control 

devices and closed-vent systems used to 

meet an emission limit for batch process 

vents. These procedures are 

summarized below. 

For each non-flare control device used 

to meet the percent reduction or outlet 

concentration emission limit for batch 

process vents, the owner or operator 

would conduct either a performance test 

or a design evaluation to demonstrate 

initial compliance. The performance test 

or design evaluation would be 

conducted under worst-case conditions 

according to 40 CFR 63.1257(b)(8). The 

results of a previous performance test 

may be used under the same conditions 

described in section III.D.1 of this 

preamble for a previous performance 

test of continuous process vents. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance, 

the owner or operator would 

continuously monitor applicable 

operating parameters for the selected 

control device (including hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP control devices 

if a halogenated organic HAP is 

controlled using a combustion device). 

For each flare, the owner or operator 

would conduct a flare compliance 

assessment to demonstrate initial 

compliance, and continuously monitor 

applicable operating parameters to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58362 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The owner or operator would inspect 

for and repair leaks in each closed-vent 

system that is used to convey a gas 

stream from a batch process vent to a 

control device. Monitoring of bypass 

lines to identify periods when emissions 

are diverted from a control device 

would also be required. 

3. Metal HAP Process Vents 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

management practices for metal HAP 

process vents, the owner or operator 

would conduct quarterly inspections 

during process operation to determine 

the integrity of the process vessels, 

identify and repair within 15 days any 

leaks, and ensure that covers are in 

place or closure mechanisms are in the 

closed position during process 

operation. 

The proposed rule incorporates by 

reference the requirements of the 

NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing 

Area Sources: Chromium Compounds 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNNN), 

concerning the procedures to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the percent reduction 

option for metal HAP process vents at 

new affected sources. A modified 

version of these requirements would 

apply to existing affected sources as 

summarized below. 

A performance test would be required 

for both new and existing affected 

sources to demonstrate initial 

compliance. Although subpart 

NNNNNN requires only outlet testing, 

this proposed rule specifies that the 

testing must be conducted at both the 

inlet and outlet of the control device to 

determine the percent reduction. The 

results of a previous performance test 

may be used under the same conditions 

described in section III.D.1 of this 

preamble for a previous performance 

test of continuous process vents. 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with an emission limit, the 

owner or operator of a new affected 

source that uses a fabric filter to control 

metal HAP emissions would install, 

operate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system in accordance with a 

site-specific monitoring plan. The 

proposed rule specifies that the 

monitoring plan must describe the 

operation, maintenance, quality 

assurance, recordkeeping, and 

corrective action procedures to be 

followed. 

The owner or operator of a new 

affected source using any other type of 

control device for PM, would 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with an emission limit by developing 

and operating in accordance with a sitespecific monitoring plan for that type of 

control device. The same requirements 

would apply to the owner or operator of 

an existing affected source using any 

type of control device for PM. The 

proposed rule specifies that the 

monitoring plan would list the 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored to maintain continuous 

compliance with the emission limit, the 

operating limit for each parameter, and 

an operation and maintenance plan for 

the control device and continuous 

monitoring system. A preventive 

maintenance schedule consistent with 

the manufacturer’s instructions for 

routine and long-term maintenance 

would be required as part of the 

operation and maintenance plan for the 

control device. 

4. Storage Tanks 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

management practices, the owner or 

operator would conduct quarterly 

inspections to determine the integrity of 

the tank, identify and repair within 15 

days any leaks, and ensure that any 

openings or access points are covered or 

closed. 

To demonstrate compliance with a 

floating roof or control device standard 

for storage tanks, the proposed rule 

requires the owner or operator to 

comply with procedures specified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart Kb. For example, 

floating roofs must meet design 

specifications, and the owner or 

operator would be required to conduct 

inspections, measure seal gaps, and 

repair defects. For a control device, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

demonstrate that the control device will 

achieve the required control efficiency 

during maximum loading conditions. 

The operating plan must also describe 

the parameter or parameters to be 

monitored to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

5. Cooling Tower Systems 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with management practices for cooling 

tower systems with recirculation rates 

less than 8,000 gal/min (i.e., inspect the 

cooling water quarterly for evidence of 

hydrocarbons in the cooling water), the 

owner or operator would be required to 

prepare an operating and maintenance 

plan that describes actions to be taken 

in response to different inspection 

results. If a leak is identified, the owner 

or operator is required to fix it within 

45 days. Records documenting the 

occurrence of each inspection, the 

findings, and any actions taken in 

response to those findings would 

demonstrate ongoing compliance. 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the management practices for 

cooling tower systems with 

recirculation rates equal to or greater 

than 8,000 gal/min (i.e., monitor for 

surrogate indicators of leaks), the 

proposed rule requires the owner or 

operator to develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan. The plan would 

include a description of the parameter 

or condition to be monitored and 

explain how the monitoring will 

reliably indicate the presence of leaks. 

To demonstrate continuous compliance, 

the owner or operator would conduct 

monitoring at least every calendar 

quarter and fix leaks within 45 days of 

detection, unless the owner or operator 

meets specified conditions under which 

delay of repair is allowed. The plan 

would not need to be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval, but the 

proposed rule requires that the plan be 

revised any time a leak is identified by 

means other than those in the plan and 

could not be detected by the procedures 

described in the plan. Except for the 

monitoring frequency in the first six 

months after the compliance date, the 

initial and continuous compliance 

requirements in the proposed rule are 

the same as the provisions of § 63.104(c) 

through (e) of the HON (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart F). 

6. Equipment Leaks 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

requirement to conduct quarterly 

inspections for equipment leaks, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

document the date and results of each 

inspection in a log book. The number 

and location of any leaks, the date of 

repair, and reasons for any delay of 

repair beyond 15 calendar days after 

detection of the leak also would be 

recorded in the log. 

7. Transfer Operations 

To demonstrate compliance with 

standards for transfer operations, the 

owner or operator would document that 

the transfer rack is designed to use top 

loading with a drop tube that extends to 

within 12 inches of the bottom of the 

vessel being loaded and/or that it can 

fill tank trucks and railcars by bottom 

loading. Alternatively, the owner or 

operator would document that 

emissions from transfer operations are 

controlled by vapor balancing back to 

the storage tank from which the tank 

truck or railcar is loaded or that 

emissions are routed through a closedvent system to a control device. 

8. Wastewater Systems 

Compliance with the standard 

requiring treatment of process and 

maintenance wastewater is a 

requirement to provide notice of any 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58363 

deviation from this requirement in the 

semiannual compliance reports. For 

wastewater streams that contain 

partially soluble HAP at concentrations 

equal to or greater than 10,000 ppmw, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to maintain records to demonstrate that 

the organic and water phases have been 

separated before discharging the water 

phase for treatment and document the 

disposition of the organic phase. 

E. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

1. Notifications and Reports 

The owner or operator would be 

required to comply with all of the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), for notifications; 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) plans and reports; and reporting. 

If performance tests are required under 

the proposed rule, then the notification 

and reporting requirements for 

performance tests in the General 

Provisions would also apply. We have 

identified in Table 4 to the proposed 

NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 

CFR part 63 applicable to affected 

sources. An additional notification for 

the use of a previous performance test 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission limit for batch 

process vents, continuous process vents, 

or metal HAP process vents would also 

be required. 

Each owner or operator would be 

required to submit a notification of 

compliance status report, as required by 

§ 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. 

Reporting requirements incorporated by 

reference may specify additional 

information to include in the 

notification of compliance status report. 

Finally, the proposed rule requires the 

owner or operator to include in the 

notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule 

requirements. 

Semiannual compliance reports, as 

required by § 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, 

would be required only for semiannual 

reporting periods when a deviation from 

any of the requirements in the rule 

occurred; the delay of repair provisions 

were invoked for heat exchangers in a 

cooling tower system; there is a delay of 

repair for an equipment leak, process 

vessel leak, storage tank leak, or leak 

from a small cooling tower; or any 

process changes occurred and 

compliance certifications were 

reevaluated. 

2. Recordkeeping 

The proposed rule requires records to 

demonstrate compliance with each 

management practice, emissions control 

requirement or other standard. These 

recordkeeping requirements are 

specified either directly in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart VVVVVV, in the General 

Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, or other 

rules in which provisions have been 

incorporated by reference. These other 

rules include 40 CFR part 63 subpart F 

(cooling towers), subpart G 

(wastewater), subpart SS (continuous 

process vents, batch process vents, and 

closed vent systems), subpart GGG 

(alternative standard), subpart FFFF 

(alternative standard), and subpart 

NNNNNN (metal HAP process vents). In 

addition, the proposed rule incorporates 

by reference the recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Kb (storage tanks). 

Records for management practices 

applicable for all process vents must be 

maintained. Specifically, the owner or 

operator must keep records of the dates 

and the results of each inspection and 

the dates of equipment repairs. 

The owner or operator would be 

required to keep records of each 

calculation that shows the TRE for a 

continuous process vent is greater than 

1.0. This requirement would apply to 

both initial calculations and 

calculations after process or operational 

changes. Records of either continuously 

monitored parameter data or CEMS data 

(if complying with the alternative 

standard) would be required for a 

control device or a recovery device if a 

recovery device is used to maintain the 

TRE between 1.0 and 4.0. 

Each owner and operator of batch 

process vents would be required to keep 

a record of the initial calculation of 

either the total annual emissions from 

batch process vents or the total annual 

HAP usage that is used to determine the 

applicable subcategory. If emissions are 

calculated, the proposed rule requires 

the owner or operator to keep records of 

the initial estimates of typical emissions 

per batch for each process and to track 

the number of batches of each process 

operated per month. If the applicable 

subcategory is determined based on 

HAP usage, then the proposed rule 

requires the owner or operator to track 

the HAP usage per month. Other 

information that the owner or operator 

would be required to record includes: 

(1) Revised estimates of the collective 

emissions from all batch process vents 

in the chemical manufacturing 

operations if process changes occur (or 

revised estimates of the HAP usage, if 

applicable); and (2) the information and 

procedures used to identify the worstcase process if the owner or operator 

elects to estimate emissions for all batch 

process vents based on the emissions for 

the worst case process. 

Each owner or operator of metal HAP 

process vents would be required to keep 

records of the initial calculation of 

estimated metal HAP annual emissions 

from all metal process vents. The owner 

or operator of each affected source that 

is subject to the emission limit for metal 

HAP emissions would be required to 

keep a current copy of the monitoring 

plan. If a fabric filter is used to meet the 

emission limit for metal HAP emissions 

at a new affected source, the owner or 

operator would be required to keep 

records of the bag leak detection system 

output, adjustments to the bag leak 

detection system, and information 

related to alarms and corrective action. 

If a control device other than a fabric 

filter is used at a new affected source to 

meet the emission limit for metal HAP 

emissions, then the owner or operator 

would be required to record 

continuously monitored operating 

parameters in accordance with the sitespecific monitoring plan. The proposed 

rule also requires the owner of an 

existing source that is subject to the 

emission limit for metal HAP to keep 

records of continuously monitored 

operating parameters in accordance 

with the site-specific monitoring plan. 

If an owner or operator is required to 

control a large storage tank in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Kb, the owner or operator would keep 

records related to the size of the tank 

and/or type of material stored for each 

storage tank. In addition, if an internal 

floating roof is installed to meet the 

standard, the owner or operator would 

maintain records of each inspection of 

the roof and seals. If an external floating 

roof is used to meet the standard, the 

owner or operator would maintain 

records of seal gap measurements. If 

emissions are routed through a closed 

vent system to a non-flare control 

device, the owner or operator would 

maintain records of monitored operating 

parameters. If the control device is a 

flare, records of all periods during 

which the flare pilot flame is absent 

would be required. For large and small 

storage tanks, records for management 

practices must be maintained. 

Specifically, the owner or operator must 

keep records of the dates and the results 

of each inspection and the dates of 

equipment repairs. 

To comply with the surrogate 

indicator monitoring standard for large 

cooling towers, the proposed rule 

requires the owner or operator to keep 

records of the monitoring data and 

information related to the detection and 

repair of leaks. Maintaining a copy of 

the monitoring plan would also be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58364 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

required. For small cooling towers, 

facilities must inspect the cooling tower 

water for evidence of the presence of 

hydrocarbons and record in a log book 

the date and results of each quarterly 

inspection, including description of 

leak; reasons for any delay of repair; and 

the date each leak is repaired. 

Each owner or operator with 

equipment in organic HAP service 

would be required to record in a log 

book the date and results of each 

quarterly inspection, including the 

number of leaks and their locations; 

reasons for any delay of repair beyond 

15 days; and the date each leak is 

repaired. 

Each owner or operator would be 

required to keep records identifying all 

wastewater streams with total partially 

soluble HAP concentrations greater than 

10,000 ppmw and the disposition of all 

organic phases generated in decanters or 

other separation equipment. 

All facilities must keep records of any 

deviations from the requirements in the 

rule, and these records must be 

included in the compliance report for 

the semiannual period in which the 

deviation occurred. 

Typically, records would be retained 

for at least 5 years, but records of storage 

tank dimensions and capacity would be 

retained for the life of the affected 

source. In addition, monitoring plans, 

operating and maintenance plans, and 

other plans would be updated as 

necessary and kept for as long as they 

are still current. 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we subcategorize emission 

sources? 

As part of the development of these 

proposed standards, we considered 

whether there were differences in 

processes, sizes, or other factors 

affecting emissions that would warrant 

subcategorization. Under section 

112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ‘‘may 

distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes within a source category or 

subcategory in establishing such 

standards * * *.’’ We explain below in 

detail our proposed subcategorizations 

for six of the eight types of emission 

points at chemical manufacturing area 

sources. We are proposing a single 

subcategory for both equipment leaks 

and transfer operations. 

Continuous Process Vents. In 

numerous previous NSPS and NESHAP 

(40 CFR part 60 subparts III, NNN, and 

RRR, and 40 CFR part 63 subpart G) 

rulemakings we have used the TRE 

equal to 1.0 as a basis for distinguishing 

continuous process vents. The TRE 

combines the effect of HAP emission 

rate, HAP heating value, and emission 

stream flow rate into a single criterion 

that is easier to use than all of the 

individual parameters. We determined 

from our review of the MON database 

that continuous process vents with low 

TRE values tend to have both higher 

emission stream flow rates and higher 

emission rates than continuous process 

vents with higher TREs. Increased flow 

from a vent generally corresponds with 

increased size of the unit operation and 

increased production rate. For these 

reasons, we think that the TRE value 

provides a reasonable estimate of the 

size of continuous process units at 

chemical manufacturing area sources. 

After determining that the TRE value 

provides a reasonable indicator of size, 

we reviewed the data to determine the 

appropriate TRE value to propose to 

distinguish large and small continuous 

process vents. We evaluated the impacts 

of requiring all continuous process 

vents to operate add-on controls such as 

flares or condensers. We also considered 

the impacts of requiring controls for 

continuous process vents with different 

TRE values. We concluded that the 

control cost increased at a significantly 

higher rate than the emissions 

reductions the higher the TRE value. We 

also considered the TRE values at which 

the various MACT and NSPS determine 

applicability. This is relevant to the size 

of the continuous process vents because 

MACT standards apply to major sources 

and NSPS standards may consider size 

in determining applicability. We then 

considered the costs of control for the 

different TRE values in other standards. 

For example, we determined that the 

HON TRE value of 1 has a costeffectiveness of approximately $3000/ 

ton of HAP removed and that the MON 

TRE value of 1.9 has a cost-effectiveness 

of $7400/ton of HAP removed. In light 

of the relative emissions reductions and 

costs for the various thresholds, we 

determined that the TRE value of 1 was 

appropriate threshold to distinguish 

between large and small continuous 

process vents at chemical 

manufacturing area source. 

For all the reasons above, we are 

proposing to develop two subcategories 

for continuous process vents based on 

differences in TRE values. We are 

proposing this because TRE value 

provides a reasonable basis on which to 

differentiate the size of continuous 

process vents. One subcategory is for 

continuous process vents with a TRE 

value less than or equal to 1.0, and the 

other is for continuous process vents 

with a TRE value greater than 1.0. We 

solicit comments on whether additional 

characteristics of continuous process 

vents would support alternative 

subcategories based on size, class or 

type. 

Batch Process Vents. We determined 

after review of information for batch 

process vents that many of the facilities 

with the highest organic HAP emissions 

are emitting methylene chloride. Many 

of these facilities are also emitting other 

HAP such as methanol, hexane, and 

toluene. All of these HAP are typically 

used as solvents. In addition, as part of 

various NESHAP rulemakings (40 CFR 

part 63, subparts GGG, MMM, and 

FFFF), we determined that processes 

using HAP as solvents generally have 

emissions much higher than other 

processes that use HAP as a reactant or 

generate HAP as a byproduct of 

reaction. This is the case because 

process vent emissions are proportional 

to HAP concentration in the vent 

stream, and the high vapor pressure 

solvents result in a high concentration 

of HAP in the gas phase. The highvolume use of solvents also results in 

higher emissions because of 

displacement losses. 

Another factor that affects the 

emissions level is the production rate. 

For chemicals manufactured using batch 

processes, production rate is measured 

by number of batches. The proposed 

rule references standard equations for 

calculating HAP emissions from unit 

operations typically used in batch 

chemical processing. The annual 

emissions from manufacturing a 

chemical using batch processes is equal 

to the emissions from a standard batch 

cycle multiplied by the number of 

batches run in a year. 

Based on this analysis, we have 

determined that operations where 

solvent use constitutes the primary 

source of HAP emissions and the 

number of batches at affected facilities 

is high, there are higher organic HAP 

emissions. We have concluded that 

these factors relating to the type of 

operation (high solvent use) and size of 

operation (based on number of batches) 

provide a reasonable basis for 

subcategorization. We considered 

whether we should combine these 

factors into a formula for defining the 

subcategories, but given the various 

variables at issue, we determined such 

an approach was too complex. As an 

alternative, we evaluated the sources in 

the category and determined that annual 

emissions rate provides a means of 

considering the factors discussed above. 

Also, as discussed above in regard to 

continuous process vents, we 

considered the relative emissions 

reductions and costs for the area sources 

in the category in determining the 

appropriate emissions level at which to 

subcategorize the batch process vents. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58365 

Specifically, we propose that facilities 

with organic HAP emissions greater 

than 19,000 lb/yr from batch process 

vents tend to have both high solvent use 

and a large number of batches. We are 

therefore proposing two subcategories 

based on the difference in annual 

emissions, one subcategory is for batch 

process vents with emissions equal to or 

greater than 19,000 lb/yr, and the other 

is for batch process vents with 

emissions less than 19,000 lb/yr. We 

solicit comments on our proposed 

subcategorization and whether 

additional characteristics of batch 

process vents would support alternative 

subcategories based on size, class or 

type. 

Metal HAP Process Vents. In our 

review of data for metal HAP process 

vents, we determined that the level of 

metal HAP emissions from the vents is 

a function of the purpose for which the 

metal HAP is present in the process. 

Specifically, emissions varied according 

to whether the metal HAPs were 

intended to be incorporated into the 

product of the chemical manufacturing 

process. For products that incorporate 

the metal HAP (e.g., manganese dioxide, 

inorganic pigments, catalysts), 

emissions of metal HAP are generally 

larger; conversely, the metal HAP 

emissions tend to be smaller when the 

metal HAP is present because it is from 

impurities introduced with raw 

materials or products of combustion. 

However, we have identified some vents 

that emit larger amounts of metal HAP, 

even though the metal HAP is not 

incorporated into the final product. 

These facilities are likely to emit more 

metal HAP because of the large size of 

the facility or because the facility is 

using raw materials and/or fuel with 

higher levels of metal HAP impurities. 

For these reasons, we are not 

subcategorizing metal HAP process 

vents solely on the basis of whether or 

not the processes are the type that 

incorporate metal HAP into the final 

product, as that would not account for 

the facilities that do not incorporate the 

metal HAP into the product, but that are 

large facilities and thus have higher 

metal HAP emissions, or those that use 

raw materials and fuel that have a 

higher metal HAP content. We 

determined that it was appropriate to 

base the subcategory on the amount of 

emissions of metal HAP from the 

process vents as a proxy for the type and 

size of the vent. In determining the 

appropriate emissions level, we 

considered relative emissions 

reductions and costs to the affected area 

sources. 

We are co-proposing two 

subcategories for metal HAP process 

vents based on either an emission level 

of 100 lb/yr or an emission level of 400 

lb/yr. We think that at either level the 

proposed subcategorization accounts for 

the purpose for which the metal HAP 

emissions are present in the metal HAP 

process vents, the size of the facilities 

that incorporate metal HAP into the 

product, the size of facilities that do not 

incorporate metal into the final product, 

and the facilities that do not incorporate 

the metal HAP into the product but use 

raw materials or fuels that have high 

metal HAP content. By considering all 

these factors in our subcategorization 

determination and also the relative 

emissions reductions and cost of 

controls, we believe that we have 

developed a reasonable basis on which 

to subcategorize metal HAP process 

vents. We solicit comments, along with 

supporting documentation, on the coproposed subcategories based on either 

100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr and whether 

additional characteristics of metal HAP 

process vents would support alternative 

subcategories based on size, class or 

type. 

Storage tanks. In our review for 

storage tanks we determined that the 

NSPS for volatile organic liquid storage 

vessels in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb 

applies to storage tanks at area sources. 

The NSPS applies to storage tanks that 

are larger than 40,000 gallons and store 

liquid with an MTVP greater than 0.75 

pounds per square inch absolute (psia). 

It also applies to storage tanks that have 

a capacity greater than 20,000 gallons 

and store liquid with a MTVP greater 

than 4.0 psia. We determined that tanks 

meeting the applicability criteria in 

subpart Kb are large storage tanks and 

tanks not meeting those applicability 

thresholds are small tanks. Therefore, 

we are proposing two subcategories for 

storage tanks, one for large storage 

tanks, which are those that exceed the 

NSPS capacity and MTVP limits in 

subpart Kb, and one for small storage 

tanks, which are those that do not 

exceed those limits. We solicit comment 

on our subcategorization determination 

and whether there are other means to 

differentiate among storage tanks that 

would support alternative subcategories 

based on size, type or class. 

Cooling towers. In our review of 

information for cooling tower systems 

we determined that certain counties in 

the State of Texas require continuous 

monitoring of the total strippable VOC 

concentration and water flow at the 

inlet of each cooling tower with a design 

recirculation rate greater than or equal 

to 8,000 gal/min. This recirculation rate 

is representative of typical large size 

cooling towers for the chemical 

manufacturing industry. Smaller cooling 

towers are those with a design 

recirculation rate less than 8,000 gal/ 

min. Therefore, we are proposing two 

subcategories for cooling tower systems 

based on the size of the cooling towers 

and using the threshold in the Texas 

requirement as the basis for 

differentiating among large and small 

cooling towers. We solicit comment on 

our proposed subcategorization and 

whether there are other means to 

differentiate among cooling towers that 

would support alternative subcategories 

based on size, type or class. 

Wastewater systems. In our review of 

information for wastewater systems, we 

determined that the reported 

solubilities, the concentration at which 

the solute no longer dissolves in water, 

of many of the chemical manufacturing 

organic urban HAP are approximately 

10,000 ppmw. Thus, wastewater streams 

with concentrations above this level 

would separate into organic and water 

phases if allowed to settle. The 

pharmaceuticals production MACT 

standard, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG 

prohibits the discharge of multi-phase 

wastewater streams to wastewater 

treatment systems, and this and other 

MACT standards prohibit the discharge 

of streams that contain organic HAP at 

concentrations greater than 10,000 

ppmw without meeting the maximum 

control standards in the rule. Because 

organic HAP in wastewater may exist as 

a separate phase we consider this type 

of wastewater stream different than an 

aqueous stream. We are proposing two 

subcategories based on the 10,000 

ppmw concentration of organic HAP, 

which is the level the organic HAP 

generally ceases to dissolve in water. 

We solicit comment on our proposed 

subcategorization and whether there are 

other means to differentiate among 

wastewater systems that would support 

alternative subcategories based on size, 

type or class. 

B. How did we determine GACT? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT for eight types of emission points 

at nine area source chemical 

manufacturing source categories. As 

noted in section II of this preamble, the 

statute allows EPA to establish 

standards for area sources listed 

pursuant to section 112(c) based on 

GACT. The statute does not set any 

condition precedent for issuing 

standards under section 112(d)(5) other 

than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that 

EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), 

which is the case here. 

The information used to determine 

the proposed GACT standards is derived 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58366 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

from existing regulations that apply to 

some chemical manufacturing area 

sources, facilities in other area source 

categories, and chemical manufacturing 

major sources; permits and other 

sources of information about control 

technologies and management practices 

that represent current industry practice; 

and information regarding control 

technologies used at chemical 

manufacturing major sources. We also 

considered costs and economic impacts 

in determining GACT. 

We explain below in detail our 

proposed GACT determinations for each 

of the emission points at chemical 

manufacturing area sources. Table 1 of 

this preamble summarizes the proposed 

GACT standard for each subcategory 

and emission point. We request 

comment on all of the proposed GACT 

determinations. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GACT FOR CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCES

Emission point Subcategory Proposed GACT 

Continuous process vents ... TRE ≤1.0 and TRE >1.0 ................................................. Management practices. 

TRE ≤1.0 ......................................................................... Use control device that reduces organic HAP by ≥95 

percent. 

Batch process vents ............ Organic HAP emissions from all batch process vents 

<19,000 lb/yr and ≥19,000 lb/yr.

Management practices. 

Organic HAP emissions from all batch process vents 

≥19,000 lb/yr.

Use control device that reduces organic HAP by ≥90 

percent. 

Metal HAP process vents .... All metal HAP emissions ................................................. Management practices. 

Metal HAP emissions ≥100 (or 400) lb/yr ....................... Use control device that reduces metal HAP emissions 

by ≥95 percent. 

Storage tanks ....................... Tank size or MTVP of stored material less than thresholds for control in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or tank 

size and MTVP at or above thresholds.

Management practices. 

Both tank size and MTVP of stored material at or 

above thresholds in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.

Control in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart Kb. 

Cooling tower systems ......... Cooling water recirculation rate <8,000 gal/min ............. Management practices. 

Cooling water recirculation rate ≥8,000 gal/min ............. Surrogate monitoring for leaks. 

Equipment leaks .................. All .................................................................................... Quarterly inspections for leaks and repair of equipment 

found to be leaking. 

Transfer operations .............. All .................................................................................... Submerged loading and other management practices. 

Wastewater systems ............ Wastewater streams with PSHAP concentrations 

<10,000 ppmw and ≥10,000 ppmw.

Treatment. 

Wastewater streams with PSHAP concentrations 

≥10,000 ppmw.

Use gravity separation device to separate organic and 

water layers, and treat the water layer. 

1. GACT for Organic HAP Process Vents 

In evaluating GACT options, we 

found that several facilities have 

incorporated Federally enforceable 

provisions in their operating permits in 

order to obtain synthetic minor status 

for HAP emissions. Many of these 

facilities are reducing organic HAP 

emissions from process vents by routing 

emissions to air pollution control 

devices such as combustion devices, 

condensers, and carbon adsorbers. 

These types of control devices are 

generally available technology because 

they are being used by many facilities in 

the nine source categories at issue to 

control organic HAP emissions. These 

controls are also used to reduce 

emissions from process vents in 

processes at other similar area sources. 

Furthermore, such controls would be 

required for some of these processes if 

they were operated at major sources 

where the emission characteristics 

exceed the thresholds for control in the 

applicable MACT standards. 

Moreover, various federal and state 

regulations require organic HAP 

emission reductions from process vents 

between approximately 90 percent and 

98 percent. For example, several states 

require a 90 percent reduction from 

certain large process vents at 

pharmaceutical production facilities. 

The pesticide active ingredient 

production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MMM) requires a 90 percent 

reduction from most process vents. 

Numerous MACT rules require 98 

percent reductions of organic HAP from 

process vents. Some MACT standards 

specify an intermediate emission limit 

based on reducing emissions by 95 

percent. Although not a regulation, the 

Alternative Control Techniques 

Document for Batch Processes (see 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334) 

identifies 90 percent reduction as an 

appropriate reduction for a range of 

process vent characteristics. 

A reduction of at least 98 percent is 

typically achievable using combustion 

devices such as thermal incinerators. A 

thermal incinerator would more than 

meet a 90 percent reduction 

requirement, and for some emission 

streams it is less costly than other types 

of control devices. A 90 percent or 95 

percent reduction, however, can also be 

met using other types of control devices 

such as condensers. The above 

discussion focuses on the types of addon controls that are available for use on 

organic process vents. In separate 

sections below, we discuss our 

evaluation of GACT for continuous and 

batch process vents. That discussion 

includes an evaluation of the costs 

associated with different percent 

emission reduction requirements. 

In addition to emission limit 

requirements, we found that several 

States require pharmaceutical facilities 

to enclose certain types of equipment, 

except when operator access is needed 

for sampling, maintenance, or 

inspections. We also understand that 

some facilities inspect process 

equipment to check for leaks. We have 

no reason to believe that it would be 

infeasible for all chemical 

manufacturing area sources to operate 

equipment only when closed and 

conduct periodic checks for leaks. 

Therefore we evaluated the cost of the 

following management practices: (1) 

Cover all process tanks and mixing 

vessels during operation, (2) maintain 

covers in the closed position on all 

openings and access points in other 

process vessels, (3) conduct quarterly 

inspections to check for leaks from the 

process vessels and determine the 

integrity of the process vessels and 

ensure that covers are being used as 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58367 

specified in items 1 and 2, and (4) repair 

within 15 days any leaks in the process 

equipment. These management 

practices could be implemented by 

facilities with both batch process vent 

subcategories and both continuous 

process vent subcategories. Costs to 

implement such management practices 

are estimated to be approximately $280/ 

yr for each affected facility. 

Continuous process vents. As part of 

our GACT analysis for the two 

subcategories of continuous process 

vents, we evaluated the costs of using 

add-on control devices to achieve a 95 

percent reduction of organic HAP 

emissions from continuous process 

vents. We estimated that two facilities 

in the subcategory with a TRE index 

value less than or equal to 1.0 are not 

already achieving reduction comparable 

to this emission limit. Based on a range 

of emission stream characteristics, a 

condenser and a thermal incinerator 

were each determined to be the least 

costly control device for one facility. 

The average cost-effectiveness of control 

was estimated at about $3,000/ton of 

HAP removed, which is consistent with 

cost-effectiveness for standards based on 

a TRE of 1. Because this cost is 

reasonable, we also evaluated the cost of 

a 98 percent reduction option. However, 

sources already implementing controls 

may need to install combustion devices 

to achieve 98 percent emissions 

reduction. We could not estimate the 

number of these controlled sources and 

baseline emissions, but the incremental 

cost-effectiveness for implementing 

controls to meet 98 percent relative to 

installing controls to meet the 95 

percent reduction option is nearly 

$90,000/ton. 

We also evaluated the impacts of a 95 

percent reduction emission limit for 

facilities in the subcategory with TRE 

index values greater than 1.0. The mix 

of control devices used would be the 

same as for facilities in the other 

subcategory, but the average costeffectiveness of this option would be 

about $30,000/ton of HAP removed. 

Because this cost is unreasonable, we 

did not evaluate the cost of a more 

stringent 98 percent reduction option 

for this subcategory. 

Based on the generally available 

controls and management practices and 

the estimated costs, we are proposing 

that GACT be different for the two 

subcategories. For the subcategory of 

facilities with TRE index values less 

than or equal to 1.0, we are proposing 

that GACT consists of both management 

practices as described above and 

controls to meet a 95 percent reduction 

emission limit because the costs for both 

of these options were determined to be 

reasonable. We have determined that 

controls to meet a more stringent 98 

percent reduction emission limit do not 

represent GACT because the costs were 

determined to be unreasonable. For the 

subcategory of facilities with TRE index 

values greater than 1.0, we are 

proposing that GACT consists only of 

the management practices described 

above because the cost of other 

generally available controls to reduce 

emissions were determined to be 

unreasonable. 

Batch process vents. As part of our 

GACT analysis for the two subcategories 

of batch process vents, we evaluated the 

costs to use add-on control devices to 

reduce organic HAP emissions from 

batch process vents by 90 percent. We 

estimated that four facilities in the 

subcategory with emissions equal to or 

greater than 19,000 lb/yr are not already 

using controls that achieve this 

reduction. We estimated that the flow of 

the emission streams at these facilities 

would be relatively low and the HAP 

concentration relatively high so that 

condensers would be the least costly 

control device. The cost-effectiveness of 

control would be about $2,300/ton of 

HAP removed. Because this cost is 

reasonable, we also evaluated the cost of 

a 98 percent reduction option. To meet 

the 98 percent control level, a facility 

would likely need to install a 

combustion device. Because we could 

not estimate the types of controls at 

sources or the number of sources that 

would have to install completely new 

controls to meet this standard, we 

estimated the incremental cost of a 98 

percent control level relative to a 90 

percent control level. That incremental 

cost-effectiveness is estimated at nearly 

$100,000/ton. 

We also examined the cost of a 90 

percent reduction emission limit for 

facilities in the subcategory with 

estimated uncontrolled emissions from 

batch process vents less than 19,000 lb/ 

yr. We estimated that this subcategory 

includes 107 facilities with emission 

streams that span a range of flows and 

concentrations. Condensers would be 

the least costly control device for some 

facilities, and incinerators would be the 

least costly control device for other 

facilities. The average cost-effectiveness 

of control for these facilities is estimated 

at about $25,000/ton of HAP removed. 

Because this cost is unreasonable, we 

did not evaluate the cost of a more 

stringent 98 percent reduction option 

for this subcategory. 

Based on the generally available 

controls and management practices and 

the estimated costs, we are proposing 

that GACT be different for the two 

subcategories. For the subcategory of 

facilities with batch process vent 

emissions equal to or greater than 

19,000 lb/yr we are proposing that 

GACT consists of both management 

practices as described above and a 90 

percent reduction emission limit 

because the costs for both of these 

options were determined to be 

reasonable. We are proposing that a 

more stringent 98 percent reduction 

emission limit does not represent GACT 

because the costs were determined to be 

unreasonable. For the subcategory of 

facilities with batch process vent 

emissions less than 19,000 lb/yr, we are 

proposing that GACT consists only of 

management practices because the costs 

of other available controls to reduce 

emissions were determined to be 

unreasonable. 

2. GACT for Metal HAP Process Vents 

The metal HAP emissions tend to be 

PM emissions, and many processes emit 

other PM along with the HAP metals 

compounds. As part of our GACT 

analysis we determined that the same 

management practices described in 

section IV.B.1 for organic process vents 

are equally feasible and available for 

both subcategories of metal HAP process 

vents. We also estimated that the costs 

are the same as for organic process vents 

($280/yr per facility). 

Fabric filters and other types of 

control devices are widely used to 

control PM emissions, including PM 

containing metal compounds. Such 

controls are generally available, and 

reductions are at least 95 percent. Over 

90 percent of the PM emissions from 

area sources are in the form of fine 

particulate matter, and EPA studies 

have found that fine particles continue 

to be a significant source of health risks 

in many urban areas. 

As part of our GACT analysis, we 

evaluated the costs of using add-on 

control devices and achieving a 95 

percent metal HAP emission reduction 

for the subcategory with uncontrolled 

metal HAP emissions of 100 lb/yr or 

greater and 400 lb/yr and greater. We 

estimated that 55 facilities are in the 

subcategory defined as 100 lb/yr or 

greater and 30 facilities are affected 

when the subcategory is defined as 400 

lb/yr or greater. Table 2 of this preamble 

summarizes the impacts of the coproposed requirements. The costeffectiveness of control to the 95 percent 

reduction of emissions would be about 

$70,000/ton of HAP metal compounds 

removed and $5,000/ton of PM if the 

subcategory is defined as 100 lb/yr or 

greater. The cost-effectiveness would be 

about $40,000/ton of HAP metal 

compounds removed and $3,000/ton of 

PM if the subcategory is defined as 400 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58368 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

lb/yr or greater. The costs for both coproposals are considered acceptable and 

are in line with the cost-effectiveness for 

PM in other rules, including rules that 

require control of PM from other area 

sources and mobile sources. We believe 

that these area and mobile source rules 

provide a reasonable benchmark for PM 

cost-effectiveness. We did not consider 

a control option more stringent than 95 

percent reduction because the use of 

add-on control devices is the most 

effective control technique available. 

TABLE 2—IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR METAL HAP PROCESS VENTS

Uncontrolled emissions cutoff for control, lb/yr Total capital 

cost (1,000$) 

Total annual 

cost 

(1,000$/yr) 

Emission 

reduction (tpy) 

Cost effectiveness 

(1,000 $/ton HAP [PM]) 

HAP PM Relative to 

baseline Incremental 

400 ....................................................................................... 0.7 1.7 41 570 41 [2.9] 

100 ....................................................................................... 1.3 3.0 44 610 69 [4.9] 430 [31] 

We also evaluated the cost of using 

the same types of control devices to 

achieve a 95 percent metal HAP 

emission reduction at facilities in the 

subcategory with uncontrolled metal 

HAP emissions less than 100 lb/yr. We 

estimated that 119 facilities are in this 

subcategory, and the cost-effectiveness 

of control would be about $7 million/ 

ton of HAP metal compounds removed 

and $0.5 million/ton of PM removed. 

These costs are considered 

unacceptable. 

Based on the generally available 

controls and management practices and 

the estimated costs, we are proposing 

that GACT be different for the two 

subcategories. For the subcategory of 

facilities with uncontrolled HAP metal 

emissions equal to or greater than the 

threshold (100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr), we 

are proposing GACT to be both 

management practices as described 

above and a 95 percent reduction 

emission limit because the costs for both 

of these options were judged to be 

acceptable. For the subcategory of 

facilities with uncontrolled HAP metal 

emissions less than the threshold (100 

lb/yr or 400 lb/yr), we are proposing 

that GACT consists only of management 

practices because the cost of other 

generally available controls to reduce 

emissions were determined to be 

unreasonable. 

3. GACT for Storage Tanks 

Chemical manufacturing area sources 

that constructed, reconstructed, or 

modified certain storage tanks since 

1984 have been subject to the NSPS for 

storage vessels in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb. The NSPS requires that each 

storage tank that has a capacity greater 

than 20,000 gallons and is used to store 

volatile organic liquid that has a MTVP 

greater than 4.0 psia (or greater than 

0.75 psia for tanks larger than 40,000 

gallons) be equipped with an internal or 

external floating roof, or that the 

displaced vapors be routed to a control 

device that reduces emissions by at least 

95 percent. The number of storage tanks 

at area sources that exceed the subpart 

Kb size and MTVP thresholds and are 

not already subject to these NSPS is 

estimated to be 5. In this rule, we refer 

to these storage tanks as large tanks. The 

average annual cost for complying with 

the above-noted requirements is 

estimated at $3,000/yr, and the average 

cost-effectiveness is estimated to be 

$2,800/ton of HAP controlled. We did 

not consider control levels of 98 

percent. The costs for the control 

required in subpart Kb are based on 

floating roof control technology. With 

the low emissions from storage tanks 

relative to process vents, the 

incremental cost-effectiveness between 

95 and 98 percent would be worse than 

for process vents and very unreasonable 

when comparing the cost of floating 

roofs to the cost of combustion control. 

As part of the GACT analysis, we also 

considered applying the subpart Kb 

standards to the small tank subcategory 

of storage tanks (i.e., those that do not 

meet the subpart Kb size and MTVP 

thresholds for control). Floating roofs 

are not available for small or horizontal 

tanks, therefore, floating roofs are not 

generally available for such tanks. The 

cost of requiring add on controls for 

storage tanks is considered 

unreasonable for storage tanks that do 

not meet the size and MTVP thresholds. 

We reached the same conclusion in the 

rulemaking analyses for all of the 

NESHAP for major sources in various 

chemical manufacturing source 

categories. For example, the costeffectiveness of MON standards for 

small tanks (10,000 gallons) storing 

material with a MTVP of 1 psia, was 

estimated at approximately $8,000/ton 

of HAP removed. The size and MTVP 

thresholds vary in the NESHAP as a 

result of industry-specific MACT floor 

determinations, but in each case the 

costs to apply controls to storage tanks 

that do not meet the subpart Kb 

thresholds were determined to be 

unreasonable. We have no reason to 

believe that the results would be 

different for area sources. 

In addition to emission limits like 

those in subpart Kb, we also considered 

generally available management 

practices for storage tanks. We 

understand that it is common practice 

for facilities to periodically inspect 

storage tanks to ensure that the structure 

is sound and liquid is not leaking from 

the tank. In addition, good operating 

practice dictates that all openings and 

access points on storage tanks will be 

covered or closure mechanisms will be 

in the closed position when liquid is in 

the tank, except when operator access is 

needed. During inspections for leaks, 

operators can also check that all covers 

and closure mechanisms are in place. 

The owner or operator would also be 

required to repair within 15 days any 

leaks in the process equipment. The cost 

of these management practices per 

facility is estimated at $280/yr. 

In conclusion, for the subcategory of 

large storage tanks (i.e., those that 

exceed the size and MTVP thresholds in 

subpart Kb), we are proposing GACT to 

be: (1) Management practices consisting 

of quarterly inspections for leaks and 

repairing leak within 15 days, 

minimizing and promptly cleaning up 

spills, and ensuring that all openings 

and access points are closed for all 

storage tanks; and (2) each storage tank 

must be equipped with an internal or 

external floating roof, or the displaced 

vapors must be routed to a control 

device that reduces emissions by at least 

95 percent. Costs for these control 

techniques were determined to be 

reasonable, but costs for more stringent 

controls were determined to be 

unreasonable. For the subcategory of 

small storage tanks (i.e., those that do 

not meet the size and MTVP thresholds 

in subpart Kb), we are proposing GACT 

to be the same management practices 

that are part of GACT for the large 

storage tank subcategory. These costs 

were determined to be reasonable. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58369 

However, as noted above, we concluded 

that the costs for meeting the storage 

tank controls required by subpart Kb 

were unreasonable. 

4. GACT for Cooling Tower Systems 

In evaluating GACT options, we 

found permits for three petroleum 

refineries (1 in California, 1 in Indiana, 

and 1 in Illinois) that are required to 

conduct daily or weekly visual 

inspections for evidence of 

hydrocarbons in cooling tower 

recirculating water. Determination of 

other parameters such as the chlorine 

content and/or total dissolved solids is 

also required periodically. Required 

actions in response to finding 

hydrocarbons in the water vary among 

the four facilities. One facility is 

required to take remedial action to 

correct the problem. The second facility 

is required to conduct VOC sampling 

and estimate the VOC emissions; if 

emissions are estimated to exceed 5 

tons/yr, then the facility must apply for 

a cooling tower permit. The third 

facility must develop and operate in 

accordance with a site-specific checklist 

of steps to take if the inspection 

parameters indicate the presence of a 

leak. Although the three facilities are 

petroleum refineries, the inspection 

procedures that they conduct are 

management practices that could be 

implemented by chemical 

manufacturing area sources. Therefore, 

we are proposing the following 

management practices for small cooling 

tower systems at sources affected by this 

proposed rule: (1) Development of a 

site-specific plan that describes the 

characteristics that the owner or 

operator will consider evidence of 

process fluid leaks into the cooling 

water and the actions to be taken in 

response to finding such conditions; (2) 

quarterly inspections in accordance 

with the plan for evidence of leaks; and 

(3) keeping a log documenting the 

inspection dates, findings, and actions 

taken. We estimated the cost of this 

option at $800/yr per facility. 

We also reviewed State and Federal 

rules for emission standards that apply 

to cooling tower systems at area sources 

or that would be technically feasible for 

area sources. On the Federal side, 

SOCMI sources that are subject to the 

HON must monitor either surrogate 

indicators of a leak or monitor the water 

for one or more HAP or VOC that, if 

present, would indicate a leak. In the 

HON, if surrogate indicators are to be 

monitored, the owner or operator must 

prepare a monitoring plan that 

documents the procedures to be used, 

defines the parameter(s) or condition to 

be monitored, explains why the 

parameter(s) or condition to be 

monitored reliably indicates a leak, and 

specifies the level that constitutes a 

leak. Alternatively, if the owner or 

operator elects to monitor directly for 

HAP or VOC, the HON specifies 

sampling and analysis procedures, 

including the sampling locations and 

frequency, and a statistical procedure 

for determining whether the data 

indicate the presence of a leak. When a 

leak is found by either method, the HON 

requires that the owner or operator 

identify and fix the source of the leak 

within 45 days after detection, unless 

conditions for delay of repair are met. 

Most of the MACT rules for other 

chemical manufacturing source 

categories issued after the HON 

incorporate by reference the HON’s 

cooling tower system requirements. 

Although the HON applies only to 

major sources, there are no technical 

reasons why the procedures could not 

be applied at area sources as well. 

Therefore, we evaluated the costs of 

applying the surrogate and direct 

monitoring options to both 

subcategories of cooling towers at 

chemical manufacturing area sources. 

For cooling towers in the subcategory 

with cooling water flow rates equal to or 

greater than 8,000 gal/min, we estimated 

the average cost of the surrogate 

monitoring option to be about $1,600/yr 

per facility, and the cost-effectiveness is 

estimated at $1,100/ton of HAP 

removed. For cooling towers in the 

subcategory with cooling water flow 

rates less than 8,000 gal/min, the costeffectiveness is estimated at $13,000/ton 

of HAP removed. 

Based on the information regarding 

available monitoring methods and 

estimated costs, we are proposing that 

GACT be different for the two 

subcategories. Costs to implement 

monitoring consistent with HON 

requirements was determined to be 

unreasonable for the subcategory of 

cooling towers with cooling water flow 

rates less than 8,000 gal/min. Therefore, 

we are proposing that GACT for this 

subcategory is management practices as 

described above for small cooling tower 

systems. For cooling towers systems in 

the subcategory with cooling water flow 

rates equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/ 

min, we estimated that the cost of 

quarterly surrogate monitoring is 

reasonable, and therefore we are 

proposing surrogate monitoring as 

GACT. We request comment on this 

decision and rationale for alternative 

approaches. We are also interested in 

emission and cost data for cooling 

towers that are implementing the 

monitoring requirements in the HON or 

other rules at either area sources or 

major sources. 

5. GACT for Equipment Leaks 

We concluded that most chemical 

manufacturing area sources conduct 

periodic sensory-based inspections to 

identify and repair leaks as part of 

routine or preventive maintenance 

programs. Based on permits and other 

available information, we determined 

that some facilities have obtained 

synthetic minor status for HAP and may 

be implementing leak detection and 

repair programs based on instrument 

monitoring consistent with NESHAP for 

major sources (e.g., equipment leak 

standards in 40 CFR part 63, subparts H, 

U, GGG, JJJ, MMM, and FFFF). 

The prevalence of sensory-based 

inspection programs makes them a 

viable potential option for GACT. If, as 

believed, a large percentage of facilities 

are already being inspected for 

equipment leaks, the costs associated 

with this option would be small. The 

costs are estimated to be about $1,100/ 

yr/facility for a sensory-based quarterly 

inspection and repair program. 

We also considered a more stringent 

option that would achieve reductions 

comparable to the leak detection and 

repair program in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF. Requirements include 

periodic instrument-based monitoring of 

pumps, valves, and in some cases, 

connectors, to detect leaks of organic 

compounds above specified 

concentrations. Monitoring frequencies 

vary depending on the type of 

equipment and the percentage of 

equipment found to be leaking, but the 

requirements are similar in each rule. 

These rules also require the use of 

certain equipment or management 

practices for other types of equipment. 

We estimated that annual costs for 

model facilities range from about 

$36,000/yr to $72,000/yr. In addition, 

we anticipate that most of the processes 

at area sources are batch processes. In 

the analysis for the MON, we 

determined the cost-effectiveness of the 

MACT floor for batch processes (i.e., an 

LDAR program only slightly different 

than the final standard) at about 

$11,000/ton of HAP removed. Given 

that area sources likely have fewer 

components and lower emissions than 

major source, we expect the costeffectiveness to implement an LDAR 

program like that in the MON would be 

higher than $11,000/yr. This cost is 

unreasonable. Therefore, we are 

proposing that GACT for equipment 

leaks at all chemical manufacturing area 

sources is a program to conduct 

quarterly sensory-based inspections for 

leaks and repair equipment found to be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58370 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

leaking. As explained above, while the 

cost-effectiveness cannot be determined, 

the actual cost is reasonable. 

6. GACT for Transfer Operations 

Management practices to minimize 

emissions from transfer operations are 

commonly implemented. These 

procedures include minimizing spills, 

cleaning up spills promptly, covering 

open containers when not in use, and 

minimizing discharges to open waste 

collection systems. We estimate the 

average costs to implement these 

management practices at $620/yr per 

facility. 

In background documentation for the 

HON, we noted that as of 1991 

approximately 97 percent of the SOCMI 

facilities have, in addition to 

implementing the management practices 

set forth above, already converted 

vehicles and, where necessary, loading 

racks for submerged fill or bottom 

loading. Thus, submerged loading is 

another available management practice 

for transfer operations. Assuming the 

1991 findings are still valid for area 

sources, we estimate that three area 

sources would need to install 

equipment to comply with a standard 

that requires submerged loading, and we 

estimate the costs to be less than $2,000/ 

yr per facility. 

We also considered vapor balancing 

as GACT. Several MACT rules allow 

vapor balancing as an alternative to 

demonstrating compliance with a 

percent reduction emissions limit. As 

part of the GACT analysis we evaluated 

the costs for facilities to implement 

vapor balancing. If all facilities could 

implement vapor balancing, we 

estimated the costs to be approximately 

$12,000/yr per facility, and the 

estimated cost-effectiveness to be 

approximately $130,000/ton of HAP 

removed. However, vapor balancing 

uses process equipment and may not be 

feasible for all affected facilities. To 

achieve a comparable level of emissions 

control, these facilities would have to 

route displaced vapors from the tank 

trucks and railcars to an air pollution 

control device. If a new control device 

must be installed, the costs may be 

considerably greater than for vapor 

balancing. As a result, the costeffectiveness of a control option based 

on vapor balancing or equivalent control 

is likely to be greater than $130,000/ton 

of HAP removed. 

Because the cost of vapor balancing 

was determined to be unreasonable, we 

are proposing that GACT for transfer 

operations at all chemical 

manufacturing area sources consists of 

management practices to minimize 

evaporation losses and the use of 

submerged loading. 

7. GACT for Wastewater Systems 

Chemical manufacturing facilities 

typically discharge wastewater to some 

form of water treatment because 

treatment is needed to meet applicable 

effluent limitations. Biological 

treatment, either onsite or offsite, is the 

most common form of treatment. Other 

types of treatment include steam 

stripping and treatment onsite or offsite 

as a hazardous waste. All of the MACT 

standards for the different chemical 

manufacturing source categories require 

treatment of wastewater streams that 

meet certain flow and HAP 

concentration levels. These standards 

require either the use of a treatment unit 

that meets specified design criteria or 

that achieves specified destruction 

efficiencies for the HAP in the 

wastewater. They also typically require 

the use of covers and other techniques 

to suppress emissions from the 

wastewater conveyance system and 

treatment units. Some of the MACT 

standards also prohibit the discharge of 

multi-phase wastewater streams to 

wastewater treatment systems. 

Decanters and other equipment that 

separate organic materials and water 

mixtures into separate streams are 

widely available and used to meet this 

requirement. Although information 

about the number of area sources 

implementing controls like those 

required in the MACT standards is not 

available, the technology used to meet 

these standards is as applicable at an 

area source as at a major source. 

Based on the information regarding 

available controls, we developed three 

options for evaluation as GACT for the 

two subcategories of wastewater 

streams: (1) Discharge the wastewater 

stream to a treatment process, (2) use 

gravity separation techniques to 

separate organic and water layers (and 

then discharge only the water phase to 

wastewater treatment), and (3) treat the 

wastewater stream using controls that 

meet MACT requirements (specifically 

the HON requirements). As part of the 

analysis, we evaluated the costs of each 

option. Because facilities typically 

implement some form of treatment for 

all wastewater streams (i.e., both 

subcategories), we assumed that area 

sources would incur no additional costs 

to meet Option 1. 

Costs for Option 2 consist of the cost 

for a decanter and the cost to dispose of 

the organic layer as a hazardous waste. 

We estimated that 20 area sources have 

wastewater streams in the subcategory 

of streams with PSHAP concentrations 

equal to or greater than 10,000 ppmw 

and are not currently implementing 

separation techniques as specified in 

Option 2. We estimated the average 

cost-effectiveness for these area sources 

to implement Option 2 at $1,600/ton of 

HAP removed. This approach may 

overstate the costs if the recovered 

organic material can be reused in the 

process or as fuel. Option 2 is not 

applicable for the subcategory of 

streams with PSHAP concentrations 

below 10,000 ppmw; gravity separation 

techniques would have no effect on 

streams in this subcategory because they 

are already a single phase. 

Costs for Option 3 were estimated 

assuming an owner or operator would 

either treat the wastewater onsite using 

steam stripping or collect the 

wastewater for treatment offsite as a 

hazardous waste, whichever is least 

costly. The average cost-effectiveness for 

the estimated 20 facilities with 

wastewater streams in the subcategory 

of streams with PSHAP concentrations 

equal to or greater than 10,000 ppmw is 

$16,000/ton of HAP removed. We 

estimated that at least 24 area sources 

are in the subcategory with PSHAP 

concentrations less than 10,000 ppmw. 

The estimated average cost-effectiveness 

for these area sources to meet Option 3 

is $110,000/ton of HAP removed. 

Based on the information regarding 

available controls and estimated costs, 

we are proposing that GACT be different 

for the two subcategories. All three 

control options are technically feasible 

at area sources; therefore, we selected 

GACT based on the most effective 

method or combination of methods that 

has acceptable costs. For both 

subcategories, we are proposing that 

GACT consists of some form of 

treatment (e.g., whatever is needed to 

meet effluent limitations) because this 

control is typically already being 

implemented by area sources and 

therefore the costs are reasonable. For 

the subcategory of wastewater streams 

with PSHAP concentrations equal to or 

greater than 10,000 ppmw, we are 

proposing that GACT also consists of 

the use of gravity separation techniques 

to separate the wastewater into organic 

and water layers before the water layer 

is discharged to treatment because the 

cost of this control technique is 

reasonable. We are proposing that 

controls needed to meet more stringent 

emission limits like those required by 

the HON do not represent GACT for 

either subcategory because the costs are 

unreasonable. 

C. How did we select compliance 

requirements? 

For new and existing sources, we are 

proposing to apply the testing; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58371 

monitoring; operation and maintenance; 

and notification, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A) to ensure 

compliance with this proposed rule. We 

are proposing management practices for 

all emission sources except wastewater 

and emission limits for all emission 

sources except equipment leaks and 

transfer operations. We propose that the 

requirements in the General Provisions 

and the additional requirements 

discussed below are sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the proposed 

emissions limits and management 

practices. 

Initial compliance certification 

followed by quarterly inspections is 

required for all management practices 

proposed in this notice. We have 

determined that monitoring in the form 

of recordkeeping is sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. Records of inspections 

that document the date of each 

inspection, the results of each 

inspection, and the actions taken as a 

result of findings during the inspections 

are required. These compliance 

requirements are similar the equipment 

leak inspection requirements in 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts R and HHHHH and are 

sufficient to verify that the inspections 

have been conducted at the required 

frequency and that the leaking 

equipment has been identified and 

promptly repaired. 

For cooling towers and transfer 

operations the management practices 

have additional requirements. The 

management practices for cooling tower 

systems requires the owner or operator 

to develop an inspection plan 

describing corrective actions to be taken 

if the presence of a leak is indicated. 

The management practices for transfer 

operation require submerged loading. 

The proposed compliance 

requirements associated with the 

emission limits in the proposed rule are 

addressed below. We have reviewed the 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for batch process 

vents and continuous process vents in 

subparts SS and FFFF of 40 CFR this 

part 63. We believe that these 

requirements are sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the proposed 

emissions limits for continuous and 

batch process vents for the nine area 

source categories at issue in this 

proposed rule. We have, therefore, 

incorporated the subpart SS and subpart 

FFFF testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements into this rule for those 

continuous and batch process vent 

subcategories that are subject to 

emission reduction limits. 

We have reviewed the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for metal process 

vents in subpart NNNNNN of part 63 

(standards for chromium compound 

manufacturing). We are proposing to 

require the testing and reporting 

requirements for chromium compound 

manufacturing in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNNNNN for the subcategory of 

area sources (both new and existing) 

that emit more than 100 lb/yr of metal 

HAP. We are also proposing to require 

the monitoring requirements in subpart 

NNNNNN for new area sources that 

emit more than 100 lb/yr of metal HAP. 

For existing sources, however, we have 

determined that monitoring of control 

device parameters is needed to 

demonstrate compliance with the 95 

percent reduction emission limit. 

Therefore, we are proposing that each 

existing source develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan to identify the 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored and the operating limit for 

each parameter. We are also proposing 

that existing sources keep records of the 

collected monitoring data. 

We have reviewed the inspection, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the NSPS for 

volatile organic liquid storage tanks (40 

CFR part 60, subpart Kb), and we 

believe that these requirements are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

emission standards proposed in this 

rule for large storage tanks (i.e., the 

subcategory of storage tanks that exceed 

the capacity and MTVP thresholds in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Kb). Therefore, we 

are proposing to incorporate the 

inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Kb into this rule to 

apply to the large storage tank 

subcategory. 

We have reviewed the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for cooling 

towers in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F. We 

have determined that these 

requirements are sufficient to assure 

compliance with the proposed surrogate 

monitoring standards for the cooling 

tower emission sources in this rule. 

Therefore, we are incorporating by 

reference the testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of subpart F and applying 

those requirements to the subcategory of 

area sources that are subject to the 

surrogate monitoring standards for 

cooling towers in this proposed rule. 

Each owner or operator would be 

required to keep records identifying all 

wastewater streams with total partially 

soluble HAP concentrations greater than 

10,000 ppmw and the disposition of all 

organic phases generated in decanters or 

other separation equipment. We have 

determined that these requirements are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

proposed standards for wastewater. 

D. Why did we decide to exempt these 

area source categories from title V 

permitting requirements? 

We are proposing exemption from 

title V permitting requirements for 

affected sources in the Agricultural 

Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Production, Industrial 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, 

Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments 

Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic 

Materials and Resins Manufacturing, 

Pharmaceutical Production, and 

Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing area 

source categories for the reasons 

described below. 

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides 

that the Administrator may exempt an 

area source category from title V if he 

determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. See CAA section 502(a). In 

December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on a particular area source 

category include: (1) Whether title V 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, that are 

proposed for an area source category (70 

FR 75323); (2) whether title V 

permitting would impose significant 

burdens on the area source category and 

whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources 

may have in obtaining assistance from 

permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 

whether the costs of title V permitting 

for the area source category would be 

justified, taking into consideration any 

potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); 

and (4) whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58372 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP for 

the area source category, without relying 

on title V permits (70 FR 75326). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further explained 

that we considered on ‘‘a case-by-case 

basis the extent to which one or more 

of the four factors supported title V 

exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether 

considered together those factors 

demonstrated that compliance with title 

V requirements would be ’unnecessarily 

burdensome’ on the category, consistent 

with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 

FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination, and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting the area 

source categories would adversely affect 

public health, welfare or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. As explained below, we 

propose that title V permitting is 

unreasonably burdensome for the area 

source categories at issue in this 

proposed rule. We have also determined 

that the proposed exemptions from title 

V would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare and the environment. 

Our rationale for this decision follows 

here. 

In considering the exemption from 

title V requirements for sources in the 

categories affected by this proposed 

rule, we first compared the title V 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements (factor one) to 

the requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP for the area source categories. 

The proposed rule requires 

implementation of certain management 

practices, which are practices that are 

currently used at most facilities, for 

most subcategories and add on controls 

and other requirements, in addition to 

management practices for other 

subcategories of sources. The proposed 

rule requires direct monitoring of 

emissions or control device parameters, 

both continuous and periodic, 

recordkeeping that also may serve as 

monitoring, and deviation and other 

semi-annual reporting to assure 

compliance with these requirements. 

The monitoring component of the first 

factor favors title V exemption. For the 

management practices, this proposed 

standard provides monitoring in the 

form of recordkeeping that would assure 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. Monitoring by means 

other than recordkeeping for the 

management practices is not practical or 

appropriate. Records are required to 

ensure that the management practices 

are followed. The proposed rule 

requires the owner or operator to record 

the date and results of inspections, as 

well as any actions taken in response to 

findings of the inspections. The records 

are required to be maintained as 

checklists, logbooks and/or inspection 

forms. The rule also requires emission 

limit requirements for some 

subcategories. Monitoring of control 

device or recovery device operating 

parameters using CPMS or periodic 

monitoring is required to assure 

compliance with these emission limits. 

As part of the first factor, in addition 

to monitoring, we have considered the 

extent to which title V could potentially 

enhance compliance for area sources 

covered by this proposed rule through 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. We have considered the 

various title V recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, including 

requirements for a 6-month monitoring 

report, deviation reports, and an annual 

certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. 

For any chemical manufacturing area 

source, this proposed NESHAP requires 

an Initial Notification and a Notification 

of Compliance Status. This proposed 

rule also requires facilities to certify 

compliance with the emission limits 

and management practices. In addition, 

facilities must maintain records 

showing compliance with the required 

emission limits, management practices 

and deviation requirements. The 

information required in the deviation 

reports is similar to the information that 

must be provided in the deviation 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). In addition to 

documenting all deviations, sources are 

required to include in the semi-annual 

report any delay in repair of any leak or 

any process change that required a 

performance test or recalculation of 

emissions. 

We acknowledge that title V might 

impose additional compliance 

requirements on these categories, but we 

have determined that the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of the proposed NESHAP 

are sufficient to assure compliance with 

the provisions of the NESHAP, and title 

V would not significantly improve those 

compliance requirements. 

For the second factor, we determine 

whether title V permitting would 

impose a significant burden on the area 

sources in the categories and whether 

that burden would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the source may have in 

obtaining assistance from the permitting 

agency. Subjecting any source to title V 

permitting imposes certain burdens and 

costs that do not exist outside of the title 

V program. EPA estimated that the 

average cost of obtaining and complying 

with a title V permit was $38,500 per 

source for a 5-year permit period, 

including fees. See Information 

Collection Request for Part 70 Operating 

Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA 

ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not 

have specific estimates for the burdens 

and costs of permitting these types of 

chemical manufacturing area sources; 

however, there are certain activities 

associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. 

These activities are mandatory and 

impose burdens on any facility subject 

to title V. They include reading and 

understanding permit program guidance 

and regulations; obtaining and 

understanding permit application forms; 

answering follow-up questions from 

permitting authorities after the 

application is submitted; reviewing and 

understanding the permit; collecting 

records; preparing and submitting 

monitoring reports on a 6-month or 

more frequent basis; preparing and 

submitting prompt deviation reports, as 

defined by the State, which may include 

a combination of written, verbal, and 

other communications methods; 

collecting information, preparing, and 

submitting the annual compliance 

certification; preparing applications for 

permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 

needed, preparing and submitting 

applications for permit revisions. In 

addition, although not required by the 

permit rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity described here. Also, for a 

more comprehensive list of 

requirements imposed on part 70 

sources (hence, burden on sources), see 

the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 

70.6, and 70.7. 

In assessing the second factor for 

facilities affected by this proposal, we 

found that many of the facilities that 

would be affected by this proposed rule 

are small entities. These small sources 

lack the technical resources that would 

be needed to comply with permitting 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58373 

requirements and the financial 

resources that would be needed to hire 

the necessary staff or outside 

consultants. As discussed above, title V 

permitting would impose significant 

costs on these area sources, and, 

accordingly, we conclude that title V is 

a significant burden for sources in these 

categories. Furthermore, given the 

number of sources in the categories, it 

would likely be difficult for them to 

obtain sufficient assistance from the 

permitting authority. Thus, we conclude 

that factor two supports title V 

exemption for these categories. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. We explained above under the 

second factor that the costs of 

compliance with title V would impose 

a significant burden on many of the 

approximately 450 facilities affected by 

the proposed rule. We also concluded in 

considering the first factor that, while 

title V might impose additional 

requirements, the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the proposed NESHAP 

assure compliance with the emission 

standards imposed in the NESHAP. In 

addition, below in our consideration of 

the fourth factor, we find that there are 

adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with the NESHAP. Because 

the costs, both economic and noneconomic, of compliance with title V are 

high, and the potential for gains in 

compliance is low, title V permitting is 

not justified for this source category. 

Accordingly, the third factor supports 

title V exemptions for these area source 

categories. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining if title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome is whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. EPA 

has implemented regulations that 

provide States the opportunity to take 

delegation of area source NESHAP, and 

we believe that States delegated 

programs are sufficient to assure 

compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have 

adequate programs to enforce the 

section 112 regulations and provide 

assurances that they will enforce all 

NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 

program). 

We also noted that EPA retains 

authority to enforce this NESHAP 

anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 

and 114. Also, States and EPA often 

conduct voluntary compliance 

assistance, outreach, and education 

programs (compliance assistance 

programs), which are not required by 

statute. We determined that these 

additional programs will supplement 

and enhance the success of compliance 

with these proposed standards. We 

believe that the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated States 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with 

these proposed standards without 

relying on title V permitting. 

In light of all the information 

presented here, we believe that there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the proposed 

standards without relying on title V 

permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for these 

area source categories strongly supports 

the proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome. While title 

V might add additional compliance 

requirements if imposed, we believe 

that there would not be significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements in this proposed rule 

because the proposed rule requirements 

are specifically designed to assure 

compliance with the emission standards 

imposed on these area source categories. 

We further maintain that the economic 

and non-economic costs of compliance 

with title V would impose a significant 

burden on the sources. We determined 

that the high relative costs would not be 

justified given that there is likely to be 

little or no potential gain in compliance 

if title V were required. And, finally, 

there are adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with these proposed 

standards. Thus, we propose that title V 

permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ for these area source 

categories. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting these 

area source categories from title V 

requirements would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Exemption of these area 

source categories from title V 

requirements would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would remain the same if a 

permit were required. The title V permit 

program does not impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. As stated in 

our consideration of factor one for this 

category, title V would not lead to 

significant improvements in the 

compliance requirements applicable to 

existing or new area sources. 

Furthermore, we explained in the 

Exemption Rule that requiring permits 

for the large number of area sources 

could, at least in the first few years of 

implementation, potentially adversely 

affect public health, welfare, or the 

environment by shifting State agency 

resources away from assuring 

compliance for major sources with 

existing permits to issuing new permits 

for these area sources, potentially 

reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. Based on the above 

analysis, we conclude that title V 

exemptions for these area sources will 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare, or the environment for all of the 

reasons explained above. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt these area source 

categories from title V permitting 

requirements. 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

We estimate that the proposed 

standard will reduce organic HAP 

emissions by 211 tpy and metal HAP 

emissions by 44 tpy from the baseline 

level, for an overall HAP emission 

reduction of 255 tpy from the baseline. 

Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the 

estimated HAP reductions under the 

proposed standards for each type of 

emission point. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE

HAP EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Emission point 

HAP emission reduction (tpy) Urban HAP 

emission reduction (tpy) 

Batch process 

vents ............ 45 14 

Continuous 

process 

vents ............ 30 9 

Metal HAP 

process 

vents (100 

lb/yr)* ........... 44 41 

Storage tanks 5 5 

Cooling tower 

systems ....... 78 24 

Transfer operations ........... 1 0 .2 

Wastewater 

systems ....... 51 16 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58374 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE

HAP EMISSION REDUCTIONS—Continued 

Emission point 

HAP emission reduction (tpy) Urban HAP 

emission reduction (tpy) 

Total ......... 255 110 

* With a metal HAP subcategory of 400 lb/ 

yr, the emission reductions would be 41 tons 

per year HAP and 37 tons per year urban 

HAP. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

The total capital cost of the proposed 

standard is estimated at $2.9 million. 

The total annualized cost of the 

proposed standards, including the 

annualized cost of capital equipment, is 

estimated at $3.9 million/yr. For the coproposed threshold of 400 lb/yr the total 

capital cost is estimated at $2.3 million 

and the total annualized cost is 

estimated at $2.6 million/yr. Additional 

information on our impact estimates on 

the sources is available in the docket. 

(See Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0334.) 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

The proposed standard is estimated to 

impact a total of 450 existing area 

source facilities and 27 new sources in 

the next 3 years. Few of these facilities 

are small entities. Our analyses indicate 

that the proposed rule will not impose 

a significant adverse impact on any 

facilities, large or small. The average 

cost for each chemical manufacturing 

industry is projected to be less than 0.07 

percent of average sales. In addition, the 

average costs in each industry are 

projected to be less than 0.2 percent of 

average sales for the smallest facilities 

within each industry (i.e., facilities with 

50 to 99 employees). 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

The secondary impacts would include 

energy impacts associated with direct 

operation of combustion control 

devices, energy impacts associated with 

the generation of electricity to operate 

control devices, and solid waste 

generated as a result of the metal HAP 

emissions collected. Organic materials 

that are recovered from wastewater 

using gravity separation techniques 

would also be a solid waste if the 

material could not be reused in a 

process or as fuel. 

We estimate that an additional 220 

megawatt-hour/yr of electricity and 

260,000 standard cubic feet per year 

(scf/yr) of natural gas would be needed 

to operate control devices. We estimate 

that an additional 2.1 tpy of criteria 

pollutants would be generated from the 

combustion of natural gas in 

combustion control devices and from 

the combustion of coal to generate 

electricity. We estimate that controlling 

metal HAP emissions would generate an 

additional 620 tpy of solid waste, 

including about 44 tpy of HAP metals. 

An estimated 8 tpy of organic material 

would be recovered from wastewater 

using gravity separation techniques. 

The electricity, criteria pollutant, and 

solid waste impacts from controlling 

HAP metals would be lower under the 

co-proposed alternative that sets a 

higher size threshold between 

subcategories of metal HAP process 

vents. Overall, if the proposed rule 

includes this co-proposed alternative, 

we estimate that an additional 150 

megawatt-hours of electricity would be 

needed, an additional 1.4 tpy of criteria 

pollutants would be generated, and an 

additional 580 tpy of solid waste would 

be generated (including 41 tpy of HAP 

metal and 8 tpy of organic material from 

wastewater controls). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866, and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. 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. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2323.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the proposed rule are 

based on the information collection 

requirements in the part 63 General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

All information submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the 

Agency’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The proposed information collection 

requirements consist of an initial 

notification of applicability, notification 

for use of previous test data, notification 

of performance test, notification of 

compliance status report, performance 

tests, recordkeeping, and semiannual 

compliance reports. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 11,488 labor hours per year at a 

cost of $0.87 million for the 450 existing 

area sources and 27 estimated new 

sources. Capital/startup costs for 

performance tests and monitoring 

equipment are estimated at $102,800, 

and operation and maintenance costs for 

the monitoring equipment are estimated 

at $11,900/yr. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after October 6, 2008, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by November 

5, 2008. The final rule will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would 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. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of the proposed area source 

NESHAP on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) A small business that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58375 

meets the Small Business 

Administration size standards for small 

businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 

(less than 500, 750, or 1,000 employees 

depending on the category); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the proposed rules on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

An economic impacts analysis was 

performed to compare the control costs 

associated with producing a product at 

facilities in the various chemical 

manufacturing industries to the average 

value of shipments from such facilities. 

In all industries, the average costs are 

projected to be less than 0.07 percent of 

average sales. For the smallest facilities 

in each industry (those with 50 to 99 

employees), the average costs are all 

projected to be less than 0.2 percent of 

average sales. Thus, any price increases 

or loss of profit would be quite small. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to minimize 

the impact of this rule on all facilities, 

including small entities. Most facilities 

are in subcategories for which the 

proposed standards represent practices 

and controls that are common in the 

industry. The standards also include 

only the minimal amount of 

recordkeeping and reporting needed to 

demonstrate and verify compliance. For 

example, compliance reports are 

required only for semiannual reporting 

periods in which a deviation occurred, 

the owner or operator invoked delay of 

repair provisions for a cooling tower 

system, or a process change was made 

that potentially changed the conditions 

on which a subcategory determination 

was made. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, and tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed rules contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments, and 

impose no obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

The proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

imposes requirements on owners and 

operators of specified area sources and 

not State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to the proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local government, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on the 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified area 

sources and not tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

proposed rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

The rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA conducted a 

search to identify potentially applicable 

VCS. However, we identified no such 

standards, and none were brought to our 

attention in comments. Therefore, EPA 

has decided to use Methods 5, 5D, and 

29. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to EPA 

for permission to use alternative test 

methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and amendments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58376 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. The proposed 

rule establishes national standards for 

each area source category. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart VVVVVV to read as follows: 

Subpart VVVVVV—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Source Categories 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

Sec. 

63.11494 What are the applicability 

requirements and compliance dates? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements 

63.11495 What are the management 

practices and other requirements? 

63.11496 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for process 

vents? 

63.11497 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for storage 

tanks? 

63.11498 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for equipment 

leaks? 

63.11499 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for transfer 

operations? 

63.11500 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for wastewater 

systems and cooling tower systems? 

63.11501 What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11502 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.11503 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63– 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Used to 

Determine Applicability of Chemical 

Manufacturing Operations 

Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63– 

Emission Limits, Management Practices, 

and Compliance Requirements 

Table 3 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63– 

Partially Soluble HAP 

Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63– 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart VVVVVV 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11494 What are the applicability 

requirements and compliance dates? 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, you are subject to this 

subpart if you own or operate chemical 

manufacturing operations that process, 

use, produce, or generate any of the 

HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart 

(Table 1 HAP) and are located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. Feedstocks 

and products that contain Table 1 HAP 

are defined to be materials that contain 

greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, 

as defined by OSHA at 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 

percent for noncarcinogens. To 

determine the Table 1 HAP content of 

feedstocks you may rely on formulation 

data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, such as the Material Safety 

Data Sheet for the material. 

(b) Chemical manufacturing 

operations include all process 

equipment and activities involved in the 

production of materials described by 

NAICS code 325. Chemical 

manufacturing operations also include 

each storage tank, transfer rack, cooling 

tower system, wastewater system, 

pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection 

system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector, and instrumentation system 

associated with the production of such 

materials. 

(c) This subpart does not apply to the 

operations specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(1) The following chemical 

manufacturing area source categories 

listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) 

or 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) that are subject to or 

will be subject to area source standards 

under this part: 

(i) Manufacture of Paint and Allied 

Products 

(ii) Manufacture of Chemical 

Preparations 

(iii) Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants 

subject to subpart IIIII of this part. 

(iv) Manufacture of polyvinyl chloride 

resins subject to subpart DDDDDD of 

this part. 

(v) Manufacture of acrylic and 

modacrylic fibers and filaments subject 

to subpart LLLLLL of this part. 

(vi) Manufacture of carbon black 

subject to subpart MMMMMM of this 

part. 

(vii) Manufacture of chromium 

compounds subject to subpart 

NNNNNN of this part. 

(2) The following chemical 

manufacturing processes or chemical 

products described in NAICS code 325: 

(i) Manufacture of radioactive 

elements or isotopes, radium chloride, 

radium luminous compounds, 

strontium, uranium. 

(ii) Manufacture of photographic film, 

paper, and plate where the material is 

coated with or contains chemicals. This 

subpart does apply to the manufacture 

of photographic chemicals. 

(iii) Fabricating operations (such as 

spinning or compressing a solid 

polymer into its end use); compounding 

operations (in which blending, melting, 

and resolidification of a solid polymer 

product occur for the purpose of 

incorporating additives, colorants, or 

stabilizers); and extrusion and drawing 

operations (converting an already 

produced solid polymer into a different 

shape by melting or mixing the polymer 

and then forcing it or pulling it through 

an orifice to create an extruded 

product). An operation is subject if it 

involves processing with HAP solvent 

or if an intended purpose of the 

operation is to remove residual HAP 

monomer. 

(iv) Manufacture of chemicals 

classified in NAICS code 325222, 

325314, or 325413. 

(3) Research and development 

facilities, as defined in CAA section 

112(c)(7). 

(4) Quality assurance/quality control 

laboratories. 

(5) Boilers and incinerators not used 

to comply with the emission standards 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58377 

in §§ 63.11495 through 63.11500, 

chillers and other refrigeration systems, 

and other equipment and activities that 

are not directly involved (i.e., they 

operate within a closed system and 

materials are not combined with process 

fluids) in the processing of raw 

materials or the manufacturing of a 

product or intermediates used in the 

production of the product. 

(d) This subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source. The affected 

source is the chemical manufacturing 

operations located at a facility that 

meets the criteria specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(1) An affected source is existing if 

you commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source 

before October 6, 2008. 

(2) An affected source is new if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source on 

or after October 6, 2008. 

(e) You are exempt from the 

obligation to obtain a permit under 40 

CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided 

you are not otherwise required by law 

to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) 

or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the 

previous sentence, you must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart. 

(f) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions in this subpart no later than 

3 years after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. 

(g) If you startup a new affected 

source on or before the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart no later than 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. 

(h) If you startup a new affected 

source after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register, 

you must achieve compliance with the 

provisions in this subpart upon startup 

of your affected source. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.11495 What are the management 

practices and other requirements? 

(a) If you have an affected source with 

batch process vents, all process 

equipment in which organic HAP is 

used to process material must be 

covered when in use, and closure 

mechanisms on other openings and 

access points in process equipment 

must be in the closed position during 

operation, except when operator access 

is necessary. You must conduct 

inspections at least quarterly to 

demonstrate compliance with these 

requirements and to determine if 

process equipment is sound and free of 

leaks. You must repair any leak within 

15 calendar days after detection of the 

leak, or document the reason for any 

delay of repair. You must keep records 

of the dates and results of each 

inspection and the dates of equipment 

repairs. You must also comply with 

§ 63.11496(a) and Item 1 in Table 2 to 

this subpart, as applicable. 

(b) If you have an affected source with 

continuous process vents, all process 

equipment in which organic HAP is 

used to process material must be 

covered when in use, and closure 

mechanisms on other openings and 

access points in process equipment 

must be in the closed position during 

operation, except when operator access 

is necessary. You must conduct 

inspections at least quarterly to 

demonstrate compliance with these 

requirements and to determine if 

process equipment is sound and free of 

leaks. You must repair any leak within 

15 calendar days after detection of the 

leak, or document the reason for any 

delay of repair. You must keep records 

of the dates and results of each 

inspection and the dates of equipment 

repairs. You must also comply with 

§ 63.11496(b) and Item 2 in Table 2 to 

this subpart, as applicable. 

(c) If you have an affected source with 

metal HAP process vents, all process 

equipment in which metal HAP is 

present during the process must be 

covered when in use, and closure 

mechanisms on other openings and 

access points in process equipment 

must be in the closed position during 

operation, except when operator access 

is necessary. You must conduct 

inspections at least quarterly to 

determine compliance with these 

requirements and to determine if the 

process equipment is sound and free of 

leaks. You must repair any leak within 

15 calendar days after detection of the 

leak, or document the reason for any 

delay of repair. You must keep records 

of the dates and results of each 

inspection and the dates of equipment 

repairs. You must also comply with 

§ 63.11496(f) and Item 3 in Table 2 to 

this subpart, as applicable. 

(d) All openings and access points in 

storage tanks that are used to store 

liquid that contains organic HAP at an 

affected source must be covered, and the 

covers must be in the closed position, 

except when operator access is 

necessary. You must conduct 

inspections at least quarterly to 

determine compliance with these 

requirements and to determine if the 

storage tank is sound and free of leaks. 

You must repair any leak within 15 

calendar days after detection of the leak, 

or document the reason for any delay of 

repair. You must keep records of the 

dates and results of each inspection and 

the date each leaking tank is removed 

from service or repaired. You must also 

comply with § 63.11497 and Item 4 in 

Table 2 to this subpart, as applicable. 

(e) For all equipment in organic HAP 

service, as defined in § 63.11502, you 

must comply with § 63.11498. 

(f) For all transfer operations at an 

affected source, you must not allow any 

transferred material that contains 

organic HAP to be handled in a manner 

that would result in vapor releases to 

the atmosphere for extended periods of 

time. Measures to be taken include, but 

are not limited to, the actions specified 

in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Minimize spills of material 

containing HAP. 

(2) Clean up spills of materials 

containing HAP as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

(3) Cover all open containers of liquid 

containing HAP when not in use. 

(4) Minimize the amount of HAPcontaining material sent to wastewater 

collection systems. 

(5) Use a submerged fill pipe that 

discharges no more than 12 inches from 

the bottom of the cargo tank. 

(g) For each cooling tower system at 

an affected source, you must comply 

with paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(1) For each cooling tower system 

with a water recirculation rate less than 

8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) that 

serves heat exchangers with process 

fluid that contains any HAP listed in 

Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, 

you must develop and operate in 

accordance with a cooling tower system 

inspection plan. The plan must describe 

the inspections to be performed that 

will provide evidence of hydrocarbons 

in the recirculating water. Among other 

things, inspections may include checks 

for visible floating hydrocarbon on the 

water, hydrocarbon odor, discolored 

water, and/or chemical addition rates. 

The plan must also describe corrective 

actions to be taken in response to 

inspection results that indicate the 

presence of a leak. You must repair any 

leak within 45 calendar days after 

detection of the leak, or document the 

reason for any delay of repair. You must 

conduct inspections at least once per 

quarter. You must maintain a log or 

checklist to document the dates and 

results of inspections and the dates and 

types of corrective actions taken after 

detecting leaks. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58378 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(2) For each cooling tower with a 

water recirculation rate greater than or 

equal to 8,000 gal/min that serves heat 

exchangers with process fluid that 

contains any HAP listed in Table 4 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart F, you must 

comply with the emission standards and 

other requirements specified in 

§ 63.11500(b) and Item 5 in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(h) You must comply with the 

applicable standards in § 63.11500(a) 

and Items 7 and 8 in Table 2 to this 

subpart, as applicable, for all 

wastewater streams that contain HAP 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

§ 63.11496 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for process 

vents? 

(a) Organic HAP emissions from batch 

process vents. You must comply with 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section for organic 

HAP emissions from your batch process 

vents. If uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions from all batch process vents 

are equal to or greater than 19,000 lb/ 

yr, you must also comply with the 

emission limits and other requirements 

in Item 1 in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(1) You must determine the sum of 

organic HAP emissions from all of your 

batch process vents using test data or 

the procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of subpart GGG of this part and 

§ 63.2460(b)(1) through (5) of subpart 

FFFF of this part. Emissions for a 

standard batch in a process may be used 

to represent emissions from each batch 

in that process. You must maintain 

records of the calculations. Calculations 

are not required if you comply with 

§ 63.2460(b)(5) of subpart FFFF of this 

part. References in § 63.2460(b) of 

subpart FFFF to Group 1 batch process 

vents within a process means vents that 

must meet the emission standards for 

batch process vents in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(2) As an alternative to calculating 

actual emissions for each process, you 

may elect to estimate emissions for each 

process based on the emissions for the 

worst-case process. The worst-case 

process means the process at the 

affected source with the highest organic 

HAP emissions per batch. Process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data may be used to identify the 

worst-case process. You must keep 

records of the information and 

procedures used to identify the worstcase process. 

(3) If your current estimate is that 

emissions from batch process vents are 

less than 19,000 lb/yr, then you must 

keep a record of the number of batches 

of each process operated per month. 

Also, you must reevaluate your total 

emissions from batch process vents 

prior to making any process changes 

that affect emissions. If projected 

emissions increase to 19,000 lb/yr or 

more, you must comply with one of the 

compliance options for batch process 

vents in Item 1 in Table 2 to this subpart 

before operating under the new 

operating conditions. You must 

maintain records documenting the 

results of all updated emissions 

calculations. 

(4) As an alternative to determining 

the HAP emissions, you may elect to 

demonstrate that the amount of organic 

HAP used in chemical manufacturing 

operations is less than 19,000 lb/yr. You 

must provide data and rationale in your 

notification of compliance status report 

explaining why the organic HAP usage 

will be less than 19,000 lb/yr. You must 

keep monthly records of the organic 

HAP usage. 

(b) Organic HAP emissions from 

continuous process vents. You must 

comply with the requirements in 

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

section for organic HAP emissions from 

your continuous process vents. If the 

TRE index value for a continuous 

process vent is less than or equal to 1.0, 

you must also comply with the emission 

limits and other requirements in Item 2 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(1) You must determine the TRE 

index value according to the procedures 

in § 63.115(d) of subpart G of this part, 

except as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You are not required to calculate 

the TRE index value if you control 

emissions in accordance with Item 2 in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) The reference to § 63.113(a) in 

§ 63.115(d) of subpart G of this part is 

not applicable for the purposes of this 

paragraph. 

(iii) The term ‘‘Group 1’’ vent in 

§ 63.115(d) of subpart G of this part 

means a continuous process vent with a 

TRE index value less than 1.0. 

(2) If the current TRE index value is 

greater than 1, you must recalculate the 

TRE index value before you make any 

process or operational change that 

affects parameters in the calculation. If 

the recalculated TRE is less than or 

equal to 1.0, then you must comply with 

one of the compliance options for 

continuous process vents in Item 2 to 

Table 2 to this subpart before operating 

under the new operating conditions. 

You must maintain records of all TRE 

calculations. 

(3) If a recovery device is used to 

maintain the TRE index value at a level 

greater than 1.0 and less than or equal 

to 4.0, you must comply with with 

§ 63.982(e) and the requirements 

specified therein. 

(c) Combined streams. If you combine 

organic HAP emissions from batch 

process vents and continuous process 

vents, you must comply with the most 

stringent standard in Table 2 of this 

subpart that applies to any portion of 

the combined stream. The TRE index 

value for continuous process vents and 

the annual emissions from batch process 

vents shall be determined for the 

individual streams before they are 

combined in order to determine the 

most stringent applicable requirements. 

(d) Combustion of halogenated 

streams. If you use a combustion device 

to comply with the emission limits for 

organic HAP from batch process vents 

or continuous process vents, you must 

use a halogen reduction device to meet 

the emission limit in either paragraph 

(d)(1) or (2) of this section in accordance 

with § 63.994 of subpart SS of this part 

and the requirements referenced 

therein. 

(1) Reduce overall emissions of 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP after 

the combustion device by greater than 

or equal to 95 percent, to less than or 

equal to 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), 

or to a concentration less than or equal 

to 20 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). 

(2) Reduce the halogen atom mass 

emission rate before the combustion 

device to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/ 

hr or to a concentration less than or 

equal to 20 ppmv. 

(e) Alternative standard for organic 

HAP. Exceptions to the requirements for 

the alternative standard requirements 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart and 

§ 63.2505 of subpart FFFF of this part 

are specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) When § 63.2505 of subpart FFFF 

refers to Tables 1 and 2 to subpart FFFF 

and §§ 63.2455 and 63.2460, it means 

Table 2 to this subpart and § 63.11496(a) 

and (b). 

(2) Section 63.2505(a)(2) of subpart 

FFFF does not apply. 

(3) When § 63.2505(b) of subpart FFFF 

references § 63.2445 it means 

§ 63.11494. 

(4) The requirements for hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP apply only to 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 

generated in a combustion device that is 

used to comply with the alternative 

standard. 

(f) Emissions from metal HAP process 

vents. You must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (3) of this section for metal HAP 

emissions from your metal HAP process 

vents. If the uncontrolled metal HAP 

emissions from your metal HAP process 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58379 

vents is equal to or greater than [100 lb/ 

yr or 400 lb/yr], then you must also 

comply with the emission limits and 

other requirements in Item 3 in Table 2 

to this subpart. 

(1) You must determine and sum the 

emissions from all of the metal HAP 

process vents, except you are not 

required to determine the emissions if 

you control metal HAP process vents in 

accordance with Item 3 in Table 2 to 

this subpart. To determine the mass 

emission rate you may use process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data. You must keep records of the 

emissions calculations. 

(2) If your current estimate is that 

metal HAP emissions are less than [100 

lb/yr or 400 lb/yr], then you must keep 

records of either the number of batches 

operated per month or the process 

operating hours, whichever is consistent 

with the basis used in the initial 

estimate of emissions per year. Also, 

you must reevaluate your total 

emissions before you make any process 

or operational change that affects 

emissions of metal HAP. If emissions 

will increase to [100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr] 

or more, then you must comply with 

one of the compliance options for metal 

HAP process vents in Item 3 in Table 2 

to this subpart before operating under 

the new operating conditions. You must 

keep records of all recalculated 

emissions determinations. 

(3) If you have an existing source, you 

must comply with the performance 

testing and monitoring requirements in 

§ 63.11410(h) through (j)(1) of subpart 

NNNNNN of this part, except as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through 

(v) of this section. If you have a new 

source, you must comply with the 

performance testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 63.11410(f) through (j)(1) of subpart 

NNNNNN of this part, except as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through 

(v) of this section. 

(i) When § 63.11410(i) of subpart 

NNNNNN references an emissions limit 

in § 63.11409(b), it means Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) For each performance test, 

sampling must be conducted at both the 

inlet and outlet of the control device, 

and the test must be conducted under 

representative process operating 

conditions. 

(iii) As an alternative to conducting a 

performance test using Method 5 or 5D 

to determine the concentration of 

particulate matter, you may use Method 

29 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–8 to 

determine the concentration of HAP 

metals. You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if the overall reduction of 

either HAP metals or total PM is equal 

to or greater than 95 percent. 

(iv) If you comply with the 

monitoring requirements in 

§ 63.11410(h) of subpart NNNNNN of 

this part, then you must keep records of 

operating parameters that you monitor 

to demonstrate continuous compliance. 

(v) The requirement in § 63.11410(h) 

of subpart NNNNNN of this part to 

submit the monitoring plan to EPA or 

the delegated authority for approval 

does not apply. For an existing source, 

the requirement to prepare a monitoring 

plan applies to fabric filter controls as 

well as other types of controls. You 

must maintain the plan onsite and make 

it available on request. 

§ 63.11497 What are requirements for 

storage tanks? 

You must comply with the emission 

limits and other requirements in Item 4 

in Table 2 to this subpart for organic 

HAP emissions from your storage tanks. 

§ 63.11498 What are the requirements for 

equipment leaks? 

(a) You must perform quarterly leak 

inspections of all equipment in organic 

HAP service. For these inspections, 

detection methods incorporating sight, 

sound, and smell are acceptable. 

(b) You must repair or replace leaking 

equipment within 15 calendar days after 

detection of the leak, or document the 

reason for any delay of repair. 

(c) You must record the following 

information in a log book: 

(1) The date and results of each 

inspection, including the number and 

location of any liquid or vapor leak. 

(2) The date of repair and the reason 

for any delay of repair beyond 15 

calendar days. 

§ 63.11499 What are the requirements for 

transfer operations? 

You may comply with the emission 

standards in Item 6 in Table 2 to this 

subpart for organic HAP emissions from 

your transfer operations in lieu of 

submerged loading requirement in 

§ 63.11495(f)(5). 

§ 63.11500 What are the requirements for 

wastewater systems and cooling tower 

systems? 

(a) You must comply with the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section and in Item 7 in Table 2 to this 

subpart for all wastewater streams. If the 

partially soluble HAP concentration in a 

wastewater stream is equal to or greater 

than 10,000 parts per million by weight 

(ppmw), then you must also comply 

with the emission standards in Item 8 in 

Table 2 to this subpart for that 

wastewater stream. Partially soluble 

HAP are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(1) Determine concentrations. You 

must determine the total concentration 

of partially soluble HAP in each 

wastewater stream using the procedures 

in § 63.144(b) of subpart G of this part, 

except as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. Also, 

you must reevaluate the concentration 

of partially soluble HAP if you make 

any process or operational change that 

affects the concentration of partially 

soluble HAP in a wastewater stream. 

(i) References in § 63.144(b) of subpart 

G to Table 9 compounds mean the 

compounds listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) References in § 63.144(b) of 

subpart G to Table 8 compounds do not 

apply. 

(iii) References in § 63.144(b) of 

subpart G to Group 2 wastewater 

streams mean streams determined to 

have total partially soluble HAP 

concentrations below 10,000 ppmw. 

(iv) References in § 63.144(b) of 

subpart G to flow weighted total annual 

average concentration mean flow 

weighted average concentration per 

chemical manufacturing process (i.e., 

each process in a flexible operation unit 

is evaluated separately). If the 

concentrations in a specific stream vary 

over the period of discharge but are 

always less than 10,000 ppmw, then you 

may elect to determine the maximum 

concentration only and maintain 

records containing sufficient 

information to document why the 

determined concentration is the 

maximum for that wastewater stream. 

(v) Section 63.144(b)(2) of subpart G 

does not apply. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(b) If the water recirculation rate in 

your cooling tower system is equal to or 

greater than 8,000 gal/min, then you 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in Item 5 in Table 2 to this 

subpart and in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section for organic HAP 

emissions from your cooling tower 

system. 

(1) Monitoring shall be no less 

frequent than quarterly. 

(2) The reference in § 63.104(f)(2) of 

subpart F to ‘‘the next semi-annual 

periodic report required by § 63.152(c)’’ 

means the next semi-annual compliance 

report required by § 63.11501(f). 

(3) The reference in § 63.104(f)(1) of 

subpart F to record retention 

requirements in § 63.103(c)(1) does not 

apply. Records must be retained as 

specified in §§ 63.10(b)(1) and 

63.11501(d). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58380 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.11501 What are my notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) General Provisions. You must meet 

the requirements of the General 

Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 

as shown in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(b) Notification of compliance status. 

Your notification of compliance status 

required by § 63.9(h) must include the 

following additional information as 

applicable: 

(1) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

process vent standards in § 63.11495 

and § 63.11496: 

(i) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

management practices in § 63.11495 for 

batch process vents’’ and, if applicable, 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11496(a) for 

organic HAP emissions from batch 

process vents by routing emissions from 

a sufficient number of vents through a 

closed-vent system to any combination 

of control devices.’’ 

(ii) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

management practices in § 63.11495 for 

continuous process vents’’ and, if 

applicable, ‘‘This facility complies with 

the requirements in § 63.11496(b) for 

organic HAP emissions from continuous 

process vents by venting emissions 

through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices.’’ 

(iii) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

management practices in § 63.11495 for 

metal HAP process vents’’ and, if 

applicable, ‘‘This facility complies with 

the requirements in § 63.11496(f) for 

metal HAP process vents by venting 

metal HAP emissions through a closed 

vent system to a control device 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.11496(f).’’ 

(2) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

storage tank standards in § 63.11495 and 

§ 63.11497: ‘‘This facility complies with 

the management practices in § 63.11495 

for storage tanks’’ and, if applicable, 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11497 for storage 

tanks by operating and maintaining a 

floating roof or closed vent system and 

control device in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.112b.’’ 

(3) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

equipment leak standards in § 63.11498: 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements for equipment leaks in 

§ 63.11498 for all equipment that 

contains or contacts organic HAP.’’ 

(4) This certification, signed by a 

responsible official, for the transfer 

operation standards in § 63.11495 and 

§ 63.11499: ‘‘This facility complies with 

the management practices in § 63.11495 

for transfer operations’’ and, if 

applicable, ‘‘This facility complies with 

the requirements in § 63.11499 for 

transfer operations.’’ 

(5) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

cooling tower standards in § 63.11495 

and § 63.11500: ‘‘This facility complies 

with the management practices in 

§ 63.11495 for cooling tower systems’’ or 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11500 for cooling 

tower systems.’’ 

(6) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

wastewater standards in § 63.11500: 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11500 to treat each 

wastewater stream’’ and, if applicable, 

‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11500 for each 

stream that contains partially soluble 

HAP at a concentration equal to or 

greater than 10,000 ppmw.’’ 

(7) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official, for the 

requirement to prepare a startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan: ‘‘This 

facility has prepared a startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.6(e)(3).’’ 

(c) Recordkeeping. You must maintain 

files of all information required by this 

subpart for at least 5 years following the 

date of each occurrence according to the 

requirements in § 63.10(b)(1) of subpart 

A. If you are subject, you must comply 

with the recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A and the 

requirements specified for subpart SS 

(process vents), 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Kb (storage tanks), and subpart F 

(cooling tower systems) as specified in 

this subpart. 

(d) Semiannual compliance reports. 

You must submit a semiannual 

compliance report as required by 

§ 63.10(e)(3) only for semiannual 

reporting periods during which a 

deviation occurred, you invoked the 

delay of repair provisions for cooling 

tower systems, you do not repair an 

equipment leak or a leak in any process 

vessel or any storage tank within 15 

days or any cooling tower with a 

recirculation rate less than 8000 gal/min 

within 45 days, or you implemented a 

process change. Your report must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section, if applicable. 

(1) You must clearly identify any 

deviation from the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(2) You must include the information 

specified in § 63.104(f)(2) of subpart F 

for each delay of repair of each cooling 

tower with a recirculation rate greater 

than or equal to 8,000 gal/min. 

(3) You must provide information on 

the date of the equipment leak or the 

leak in the process vessel, storage tank, 

or cooling vessel with a recirculation 

rate less than 8000 gal./min. was 

identified, the date the leak was 

repaired, and the reason for the delay in 

repair. 

(4) You must report each process 

change that affects a compliance 

determination and submit a new 

certification of compliance with the 

applicable requirements in accordance 

with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

§ 63.11502 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart have the 

meaning given them in the Clean Air 

Act, § 63.2, subpart SS (§ 63.981), 40 

CFR 60.111b, subpart F (§ 63.101), 

subpart G (§ 63.111), subpart FFFF 

(§ 63.2550), and in this section as 

follows: 

Batch process vent means the point of 

discharge from a unit operation in 

chemical manufacturing operations of a 

gas stream that contains organic HAP 

and flows intermittently. 

Continuous process vent means the 

point of discharge from a unit operation 

in chemical manufacturing operations of 

a gas stream that originates as a 

continuous flow from a continuous 

operation and contains organic HAP. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emissions limitation or management 

practice; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit; or 

(3) Fails to meet any emissions 

limitation or management practice in 

this subpart during startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction, regardless of whether or 

not such failure is permitted by this 

subpart. 

Equipment means each pump, 

compressor, agitator, pressure relief 

device, sampling connection system, 

open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector, and instrumentation systems 

that contains or contacts organic HAP as 

defined in section 112 of the CAA. 

In organic HAP service means that a 

piece of equipment either contains or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58381 

contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that 

contains one or more organic HAP. 

Metal HAP means the compounds 

containing metals listed as HAP in 

section 112 of the CAA. 

Metal HAP process vent means the 

point of discharge to the atmosphere (or 

inlet to a control device, if any) of a 

metal HAP-containing gas stream from 

any unit operation in chemical 

manufacturing operations at an affected 

source. 

Organic HAP means any organic HAP 

listed in section 112 of the CAA. For the 

purposes of requirements in this subpart 

VVVVVV, hydrazine is to be considered 

an organic HAP. 

Recovery device means an individual 

unit of equipment used for the purpose 

of recovering chemicals from gas 

streams for fuel value (i.e., net positive 

heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for 

fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of 

equipment that may be recovery devices 

include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, 

condensers, oil-water separators or 

organic-water separators, or organic 

removal devices such as decanters, 

strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

Storage tank means a tank or other 

vessel that is used to store liquids that 

contain organic HAP that are used in or 

produced by chemical manufacturing 

operations. Surge control vessels and 

bottoms receivers are considered to be 

storage tanks for the purposes of this 

subpart. The following are not 

considered storage tanks for the 

purposes of this subpart. 

(1) Vessels permanently attached to 

motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars, 

barges, or ships; 

(2) Pressure vessels designed to 

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals 

and without emissions to the 

atmosphere; and 

(3) Process vessels. 

Total organic HAP means all of the 

organic HAP as defined in section 112 

of the CAA. 

Transfer operations means all loading 

into tank trucks and rail cars of liquid 

containing organic HAP from a transfer 

rack. A transfer rack is the system used 

to fill tank trucks and railcars at a single 

geographic site. Transfer operations do 

not include the loading to other types of 

containers such as cans, drums, and 

totes. 

Wastewater means water that is 

discarded from an affected source and 

that contains any HAP listed in Table 9 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. 

Wastewater means both process 

wastewater and maintenance 

wastewater. 

§ 63.11503 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a 

delegated authority such as a State, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant 

to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if this subpart is delegated to a State, 

local, or tribal agency within your State. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section are 

retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the 

State, local, or tribal agency. 

(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of a major change to a 

test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 

A ‘‘major change to test method’’ is 

defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major 

change to monitoring’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting under 

§ 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63 

As required in § 63.11494(a), chemical 

manufacturing operations that process, 

use, or produce the HAP shown in the 

following table are subject to subpart 

VVVVVV. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS USED TO DETERMINE APPLICABILITY OF

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS

Type of HAP Chemical name CAS No. 

1. Organic compounds ............................... a. 1,3-butadiene .............................................................................................................. 106990 

b. 1,3-dichloropropene .................................................................................................... 542756 

c. Acetaldehyde .............................................................................................................. 75070 

d. Chloroform .................................................................................................................. 67663 

e. Ethylene dichloride ..................................................................................................... 107062 

f. Hexachlorobenzene ..................................................................................................... 118741

g. Methylene chloride ...................................................................................................... 75092 

h. Quinoline ..................................................................................................................... 91225 

2. Metal compounds ................................... a. Arsenic compounds .................................................................................................... ....................

b. Cadmium compounds ................................................................................................. ....................

c. Chromium compounds ................................................................................................ ....................

d. Lead compounds ........................................................................................................ ....................

e. Manganese compounds ............................................................................................. ....................

f. Nickel compounds ....................................................................................................... ....................

3. Others .................................................... a. Hydrazine .................................................................................................................... 302012 

As required in §§ 63.11495, 63.11496, 

63.11497, 63.11499, and 63.11500, you 

must comply with the requirements for 

process vents, storage tanks, cooling 

towers, transfer operations, and 

wastewater as shown in the following 

table. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58382 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS, MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE

REQUIREMENTS

For . . . You must . . . And you must . . . 

1. Batch process vents ...................................... a. If total organic HAP emissions are equal to 

or greater than 19,000 lb/yr, reduce collective uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process 

vents by 90 percent by weight or greater or 

to <20 ppmv by routing emissions from a 

sufficient number of the batch process vents 

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices (except a flare); 

or 

i. Comply with the requirements of § 63.982(c) 

and the requirements referenced therein, 

and 

ii. Comply with subpart SS including exceptions and alternatives to requirements in 

subpart SS as specified in §§ 63.2450(g) 

through (i), (k), (l), (m)(3), (p), (q), and 

§ 63.2460(c), except that references to 

emission limits in Table 2 of subpart FFFF 

mean the emission limits in item 1.a. of this 

Table, and references to reporting requirements in § 63.2520 mean § 63.11501 of this 

subpart, and 

iii. If you combust a halogenated vent stream, 

comply with the requirements for halogen 

scrubbers in § 63.11496(d). 

b. Route emissions from batch process vents 

containing at least 90 percent of the uncontrolled total organic HAP through a closedvent system to a flare (except that a flare 

may not be used to control halogenated 

vent streams), or 

Comply with the requirements of § 63.982(b) 

and the requirements referenced therein. 

c. Comply with the alternative standard specified in § 63.2505, except as specified in 

§ 63.11496(e), or 

Not applicable. 

d. Comply with combinations of the requirements in items a., b., and c. of this Table 

for different groups of batch process vents.

Comply with the additional requirements specified above for items a., b., and c., as applicable. 

2. Each continuous process vent with a TRE 

≤1.0.

a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 

percent by weight or greater by routing 

emissions through a closed vent system to 

any combination of control devices (except 

a flare); or 

i. Comply with the requirements of § 63.982(c) 

and the requirements referenced therein, 

and 

ii. Comply with exceptions and alternatives to 

requirements in subpart SS as specified in 

§ 63.2450(g) through (i), (k), (l), (m)(3), (p), 

and (q), except that references to emission 

limits in Table 1 of subpart FFFF mean the 

emission limits in item 2.a. of this Table, 

and references to reporting requirements in 

§ 63.2520 mean § 63.11501 of this subpart. 

iii. If you combust a halogenated vent stream, 

comply with the requirements for halogen 

scrubbers in § 63.11496(d). 

b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 

routing emissions through a closed-vent 

system to a flare (except that a flare may 

not be used to control halogenated vent 

streams), or 

Comply with the requirements of § 63.982(b) 

and the requirements referenced therein. 

c. Comply with the alternative standard specified in § 63.2505, except as specified in 

§ 63.11496(e).

Not applicable. 

3. Metal process vents ...................................... a. If total metal HAP emissions are equal to or 

greater than [100 lb/yr or 400 lb/yr], reduce 

uncontrolled emissions of metal HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or greater by 

routing emissions from all metal process 

vents through a closed-vent system to a 

control device.

Comply with § 63.11496(f). 

4. Each storage tank ......................................... a. Operate and maintain a floating roof or 

closed-vent system and control device in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.112b.

i. Comply with the applicable inspection and 

testing requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b(a), 

(b), or (c) for the selected control option, 

and 

ii. Comply with the applicable recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

60.115b and 40 CFR 60.116b for the selected control option. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58383 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS, MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE

REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

For . . . You must . . . And you must . . . 

5. Each cooling tower system with a recirculation rate ≥8,000 gal/min.a. Comply with the requirements of 

§ 63.104(c), except as specified in 

§ 63.11500(b), or 

b. Operate in accordance with § 63.104(a) ......

i. Repair each leak in accordance with 

§ 63.104(d) and (e), and 

ii. Keep records and submit reports in accordance with § 63.104(f), except as specified in 

§ 63.11500(b). 

Keep records documenting compliance with 

the specified operating conditions. 

6. Transfer operations ....................................... a. Control total organic HAP emissions from 

all transfer operations using any combination of submerged loading, vapor balancing, 

and routing displaced vapors through a 

closed-vent system to a control device.

Not applicable. 

7. Wastewater stream ........................................ a. Discharge to onsite or offsite treatment ....... Maintain records identifying each wastewater 

stream and documenting the type of treatment that it receives. 

8. Wastewater stream containing partially soluble HAP at a concentration ≥10,000 ppmw.a. Use a decanter or other equipment based 

on the operating principle of gravity separation to separate the water phase from the 

organic phase(s).

i. For the water phase: comply with the requirements in item 7 of this table, and 

ii. For the organic phase(s): Recycle to a 

process, use as fuel, or dispose as hazardous waste, and 

iii. Keep records of the wastewater streams 

subject to this requirement and the disposition of the organic phase(s). 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—PARTIALLY SOLUBLE HAP 

As required in § 63.11500(a), you must comply with emission limits for wastewater streams that contain the partially soluble HAP listed in the 

following table. 

Partially soluble HAP name CAS No. 

1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) .......................................................................................................................................... 71556 

2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................................................................................................................................................................... 79345 

3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 79005 

4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) .......................................................................................................................................... 75354 

5. 1,2-Dibromoethane .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106934 

6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride) ............................................................................................................................................. 107062 

7. 1,2-Dichloropropane ............................................................................................................................................................................ 78875 

8. 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 542756 

9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 95954 

10. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .......................................................................................................................................................................... 106467 

11. 2-Nitropropane ................................................................................................................................................................................... 79469 

12. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ........................................................................................................................................................... 108101 

13. Acetaldehyde ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 75070 

14. Acrolein .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 107028 

15. Acrylonitrile ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 107131 

16. Allyl chloride ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 107051 

17. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 71432 

18. Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................. 100447 

19. Biphenyl ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 92524 

20. Bromoform (tribromomethane) .......................................................................................................................................................... 75252 

21. Bromomethane .................................................................................................................................................................................. 74839 

22. Butadiene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 106990 

23. Carbon disulfide ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75150 

24. Chlorobenzene .................................................................................................................................................................................. 108907 

25. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride) ............................................................................................................................................................ 75003 

26. Chloroform ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 67663 

27. Chloromethane .................................................................................................................................................................................. 74873 

28. Chloroprene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 126998 

29. Cumene ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 98828 

30. Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................. 111444 

31. Dinitrophenol ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 51285 

32. Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................. 106898 

33. Ethyl acrylate ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 140885 

34. Ethylbenzene ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 100414 

35. Ethylene oxide ................................................................................................................................................................................... 75218 

36. Ethylidene dichloride ......................................................................................................................................................................... 75343 

37. Hexachlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................................................................... 118741 

38. Hexachlorobutadiene ......................................................................................................................................................................... 87683 

39. Hexachloroethane .............................................................................................................................................................................. 67721 

40. Methyl methacrylate .......................................................................................................................................................................... 80626 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

58384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—PARTIALLY SOLUBLE HAP—Continued 

As required in § 63.11500(a), you must comply with emission limits for wastewater streams that contain the partially soluble HAP listed in the 

following table. 

Partially soluble HAP name CAS No. 

41. Methyl-t-butyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1634044 

42. Methylene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ 75092 

43. N-hexane ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 110543 

44. N,N-dimethylaniline ............................................................................................................................................................................ 121697 

45. Naphthalene ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 91203 

46. Phosgene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 75445 

47. Propionaldehyde ................................................................................................................................................................................ 123386 

48. Propylene oxide ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75569 

49. Styrene .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 100425 

50. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) ........................................................................................................................................... 127184 

51. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride) ....................................................................................................................................... 56235 

52. Toluene .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 108883 

53. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) .................................................................................................................................................................. 120821 

54. Trichloroethylene ............................................................................................................................................................................... 79016 

55. Trimethylpentane ............................................................................................................................................................................... 540841 

56. Vinyl acetate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 108054 

57. Vinyl chloride ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 75014 

58. Xylene (m) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 108383 

59. Xylene (o) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 95476 

60. Xylene (p) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 106423 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVVVVV 

As required in § 63.11501(a), you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown 

in the following table. 

Citation Subject 

Applies to 

Subpart 

VVVVVV? 

Explanation 

63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), 

(a)(10)–(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e).

Applicability .............................................. Yes.

63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), 

(c)(4), (d).

Reserved .................................................. No.

63.2 ........................................................... Definitions ................................................ Yes.

63.3 ........................................................... Units and Abbreviations ........................... Yes.

63.4 ........................................................... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention .. Yes.

63.5 ........................................................... Preconstruction Review and Notification 

Requirements.

Yes.

63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), 

(c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)– 

(e)(3)(ix), (f) (g), (i), (j).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), 

(e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).

Reserved .................................................. No.

63.6(h)(1)–(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)–(h)(5)(iii), 

(h)(6)–(h)(9).

.................................................................. No ............... Subpart VVVVVV does not include opacity or visible emissions standards or 

require a continuous opacity monitoring system. 

63.7 ........................................................... Performance Testing Requirements ........ Yes.

63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (c)(1)–(c)(3), 

(f)(1)–(5).

Monitoring Requirements ......................... Yes.

63.8(a)(3) ................................................... Reserved .................................................. No.

63.8(c)(4) ................................................... .................................................................. No ................ Continuous parameter monitoring system 

(CPMS) requirements in 40 CFR part 

63, subparts SS and FFFF are referenced from § 63.11495. 

63.8(c)(5) ................................................... .................................................................. No ................ Subpart VVVVVV does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems 

(COMS). 

63.8(c)(6)–(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6) ................. .................................................................. Yes .............. Requirements apply only if you use a 

continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standard in 

§ 63.11495(e). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 58385 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVVVVV— 

Continued 

As required in § 63.11501(a), you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown 

in the following table. 

Citation Subject 

Applies to 

Subpart 

VVVVVV? 

Explanation 

63.8(g)(1)–(g)(4) ........................................ .................................................................. Yes .............. Data reduction requirements apply only if 

you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative standard in 

§ 63.11495(d). COMS requirements do 

not apply. Requirement in § 63.8(g)(2) 

does not apply because data reduction 

for CEMS are specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart FFFF. 

63.8(g)(5) ................................................... .................................................................. No ................ Data reduction requirements for CEMS 

are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF as referenced from 

§ 63.11496. CPMS requirements are 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subparts 

SS and FFFF as referenced from 

§ 63.11496. 

63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (c), 

(d), (e), (i), (j).

Notification Requirements ........................ Yes.

63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ........................................ Reserved .................................................. No.

63.9(f) ........................................................ .................................................................. No ................ Subpart VVVVVV does not contain opacity or VE limits. 

63.9(g) ....................................................... .................................................................. Yes .............. Additional notification requirement applies only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11495(d). 

63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(5)–(h)(6) .................. .................................................................. Yes .............. Except Subpart VVVVVV does not contain opacity or VE limits. 

63.10(a) ..................................................... Recordkeeping Requirements ................. Yes.

63.10(b)(1) ................................................. .................................................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i)–(b)(2)(v) .............................. .................................................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), (xi), (xiii) ..................... .................................................................. Yes .............. Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11495(e). 

63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(b)(2)(ix), (b)(2)(xii), 

(b)(2)(xiv).

.................................................................. Yes.

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

63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)–(c)(6), (c)(13)–(c)(14) .. .................................................................. Yes .............. Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(d). 

63.10(c)(7)–(c)(8), (c)(10)–(c)(12), (c)(15) .................................................................. Yes.

63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ........................... Reserved .................................................. No.

63.10(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f) Reporting Requirements .......................... Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ................................................. .................................................................. No ................ Subpart VVVVVV does not include opacity or VE limits. 

63.10(d)(5) ................................................. .................................................................. Yes.

(e)(1)–(e)(2) ............................................... .................................................................. Yes .............. Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(d). 

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

63.10(e)(4) ................................................. .................................................................. No ................ Subpart VVVVVV does not include opacity or VE limits. 

63.11 ......................................................... Control Device Requirements .................. Yes.

63.12 ......................................................... State Authorities and Delegations ........... Yes.

63.13 ......................................................... Addresses ................................................ Yes.

63.14 ......................................................... Incorporations by Reference ................... Yes.

63.15 ......................................................... Availability of Information and Confidentiality.Yes.

63.16 ......................................................... Performance Track Provisions ................ Yes.

[FR Doc. E8–22518 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2