[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58352-58385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22518]



[[Page 58351]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 
Manufacturing Area Sources; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 58352]]


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

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 co-proposing 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:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f1bdf1fef4bde2bdd4fff3fbf5e4d0f5e0f1bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98f9b5f9f6fcb5eab5dcf7fbf3fdecd8fde8f9b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744.
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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; e-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e535d5a51505f525a104c5f505a477e5b4e5f10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb2bcbbb0b1beb3bbf1adbeb1bba69fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

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?

[[Page 58353]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 NAICS
      Industry category         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.
\2\ All 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

[[Page 58354]]

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

[[Page 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:

 
 
 
<bullet> 1,3-butadiene                      <bullet> methylene chloride
<bullet> 1,3-dichloropropene                <bullet> hexachlorobenzene
<bullet> acetaldehyde                       <bullet> hydrazine
<bullet> chloroform                         <bullet> quinoline
<bullet> ethylene dichloride                <bullet> 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 non-chemical 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

[[Page 58356]]

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 metal-based 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

[[Page 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 
closed-vent 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

[[Page 58358]]

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 by-products 
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

[[Page 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 cost-effectiveness 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

[[Page 58360]]

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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 closed-vent 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.

[[Page 58362]]

    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 
site-specific 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 
Sec.  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 
closed-vent 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 worst-case 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 site-specific 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

[[Page 58364]]

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 cost-effectiveness 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 high-volume 
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.

[[Page 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 co-proposed 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

[[Page 58366]]

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     Management
                               >1.0.                 practices.
                              TRE <=1.0...........  Use control device
                                                     that reduces
                                                     organic HAP by >=95
                                                     percent.
Batch process vents.........  Organic HAP           Management
                               emissions from all    practices.
                               batch process vents
                               <19,000 lb/yr and
                               >=19,000 lb/yr.
                              Organic HAP           Use control device
                               emissions from all    that reduces
                               batch process vents   organic HAP by >=90
                               >=19,000 lb/yr.       percent.
Metal HAP process vents.....  All metal HAP         Management
                               emissions.            practices.
                              Metal HAP emissions   Use control device
                               >=100 (or 400) lb/    that reduces metal
                               yr.                   HAP emissions by
                                                     >=95 percent.
Storage tanks...............  Tank size or MTVP of  Management
                               stored material       practices.
                               less than
                               thresholds for
                               control in 40 CFR
                               part 60, subpart Kb
                               or tank size and
                               MTVP at or above
                               thresholds.
                              Both tank size and    Control in
                               MTVP of stored        accordance with 40
                               material at or        CFR part 63,
                               above thresholds in   subpart Kb.
                               40 CFR part 60,
                               subpart Kb.
Cooling tower systems.......  Cooling water         Management
                               recirculation rate    practices.
                               <8,000 gal/min.
                              Cooling water         Surrogate monitoring
                               recirculation rate    for leaks.
                               >=8,000 gal/min.
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    Treatment.
                               with PSHAP
                               concentrations
                               <10,000 ppmw and
                               >=10,000 ppmw.
                              Wastewater streams    Use gravity
                               with PSHAP            separation device
                               concentrations        to separate organic
                               >=10,000 ppmw.        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 add-on 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

[[Page 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 cost-effectiveness 
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 co-
proposed requirements. The cost-effectiveness 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

[[Page 58368]]

lb/yr or greater. The costs for both co-proposals 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Emission       Cost effectiveness (1,000 $/
                                        Total     Total annual   reduction (tpy)           ton HAP [PM])
 Uncontrolled emissions cutoff for  capital cost  cost (1,000$/-------------------------------------------------
          control, lb/yr              (1,000$)         yr)                          Relative to
                                                                  HAP       PM       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 cost-effectiveness 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.

[[Page 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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effectiveness 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

[[Page 58370]]

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 cost-effectiveness 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;

[[Page 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

[[Page 58372]]

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

[[Page 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 non-economic, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   HAP        Urban HAP
                                                 emission     emission
                Emission point                  reduction     reduction
                                                  (tpy)         (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

[[Page 58374]]

 
    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 co-proposed 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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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.

[[Page 58376]]

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


Sec.  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

[[Page 58377]]

in Sec. Sec.  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


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.11497 and Item 4 in Table 2 to this subpart, as applicable.
    (e) For all equipment in organic HAP service, as defined in Sec.  
63.11502, you must comply with Sec.  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 HAP-containing 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.

[[Page 58378]]

    (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 Sec.  63.11500(b) and Item 5 in Table 2 to 
this subpart.
    (h) You must comply with the applicable standards in Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii) of subpart GGG of this part and Sec.  
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 Sec.  
63.2460(b)(5) of subpart FFFF of this part. References in Sec.  
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 worst-
case 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.113(a) in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.2505 of subpart FFFF of this part 
are specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) When Sec.  63.2505 of subpart FFFF refers to Tables 1 and 2 to 
subpart FFFF and Sec. Sec.  63.2455 and 63.2460, it means Table 2 to 
this subpart and Sec.  63.11496(a) and (b).
    (2) Section 63.2505(a)(2) of subpart FFFF does not apply.
    (3) When Sec.  63.2505(b) of subpart FFFF references Sec.  63.2445 
it means Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.11410(i) of subpart NNNNNN references an 
emissions limit in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  63.11495(f)(5).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.144(b) of subpart G to Table 9 compounds 
mean the compounds listed in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (ii) References in Sec.  63.144(b) of subpart G to Table 8 
compounds do not apply.
    (iii) References in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.104(f)(2) of subpart F to ``the next 
semi-annual periodic report required by Sec.  63.152(c)'' means the 
next semi-annual compliance report required by Sec.  63.11501(f).
    (3) The reference in Sec.  63.104(f)(1) of subpart F to record 
retention requirements in Sec.  63.103(c)(1) does not apply. Records 
must be retained as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.10(b)(1) and 
63.11501(d).

[[Page 58380]]

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.11495 and Sec.  
63.11496:
    (i) ``This facility complies with the management practices in Sec.  
63.11495 for batch process vents'' and, if applicable, ``This facility 
complies with the requirements in Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.11495 for continuous process vents'' and, if applicable, 
``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.11495 for metal HAP process vents'' and, if applicable, ``This 
facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.11496(f).''
    (2) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the storage tank standards in Sec.  63.11495 and Sec.  
63.11497: ``This facility complies with the management practices in 
Sec.  63.11495 for storage tanks'' and, if applicable, ``This facility 
complies with the requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.11498: ``This 
facility complies with the requirements for equipment leaks in Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.11495 and Sec.  63.11499: 
``This facility complies with the management practices in Sec.  
63.11495 for transfer operations'' and, if applicable, ``This facility 
complies with the requirements in Sec.  63.11499 for transfer 
operations.''
    (5) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the cooling tower standards in Sec.  63.11495 and Sec.  
63.11500: ``This facility complies with the management practices in 
Sec.  63.11495 for cooling tower systems'' or ``This facility complies 
with the requirements in Sec.  63.11500 for cooling tower systems.''
    (6) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the wastewater standards in Sec.  63.11500: ``This 
facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  63.11500 to treat each 
wastewater stream'' and, if applicable, ``This facility complies with 
the requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1) of 
subpart A. If you are subject, you must comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  63.11502  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart have the meaning given them in the Clean 
Air Act, Sec.  63.2, subpart SS (Sec.  63.981), 40 CFR 60.111b, subpart 
F (Sec.  63.101), subpart G (Sec.  63.111), subpart FFFF (Sec.  
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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to a test method under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.

[[Page 58382]]



    Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits, Management
              Practices, and Other Compliance Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      And you must . . .
            For . . .               You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Batch process vents..........  a. If total         i. Comply with the
                                   organic HAP         requirements of
                                   emissions are       Sec.   63.982(c)
                                   equal to or         and the
                                   greater than        requirements
                                   19,000 lb/yr,       referenced
                                   reduce collective   therein, and
                                   uncontrolled       ii. Comply with
                                   total organic HAP   subpart SS
                                   emissions from      including
                                   the sum of all      exceptions and
                                   batch process       alternatives to
                                   vents by 90         requirements in
                                   percent by weight   subpart SS as
                                   or greater or to    specified in Sec.
                                   <20 ppmv by          Sec.
                                   routing emissions   63.2450(g)
                                   from a sufficient   through (i), (k),
                                   number of the       (l), (m)(3), (p),
                                   batch process       (q), and Sec.
                                   vents through a     63.2460(c),
                                   closed vent         except that
                                   system to any       references to
                                   combination of      emission limits
                                   control devices     in Table 2 of
                                   (except a flare);   subpart FFFF mean
                                   or                  the emission
                                                       limits in item
                                                       1.a. of this
                                                       Table, and
                                                       references to
                                                       reporting
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.   63.2520
                                                       mean Sec.
                                                       63.11501 of this
                                                       subpart, and
                                                      iii. If you
                                                       combust a
                                                       halogenated vent
                                                       stream, comply
                                                       with the
                                                       requirements for
                                                       halogen scrubbers
                                                       in Sec.
                                                       63.11496(d).
                                  b. Route emissions  Comply with the
                                   from batch          requirements of
                                   process vents       Sec.   63.982(b)
                                   containing at       and the
                                   least 90 percent    requirements
                                   of the              referenced
                                   uncontrolled        therein.
                                   total organic HAP
                                   through a closed-
                                   vent system to a
                                   flare (except
                                   that a flare may
                                   not be used to
                                   control
                                   halogenated vent
                                   streams), or
                                  c. Comply with the  Not applicable.
                                   alternative
                                   standard
                                   specified in Sec.
                                     63.2505, except
                                   as specified in
                                   Sec.
                                   63.11496(e), or
                                  d. Comply with      Comply with the
                                   combinations of     additional
                                   the requirements    requirements
                                   in items a., b.,    specified above
                                   and c. of this      for items a., b.,
                                   Table for           and c., as
                                   different groups    applicable.
                                   of batch process
                                   vents.
2. Each continuous process vent   a. Reduce           i. Comply with the
 with a TRE <=1.0.                 emissions of        requirements of
                                   organic HAP by 95   Sec.   63.982(c)
                                   percent by weight   and the
                                   or greater by       requirements
                                   routing emissions   referenced
                                   through a closed    therein, and
                                   vent system to     ii. Comply with
                                   any combination     exceptions and
                                   of control          alternatives to
                                   devices (except a   requirements in
                                   flare); or          subpart SS as
                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                         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
                                                       Sec.   63.2520
                                                       mean Sec.
                                                       63.11501 of this
                                                       subpart.
                                                      iii. If you
                                                       combust a
                                                       halogenated vent
                                                       stream, comply
                                                       with the
                                                       requirements for
                                                       halogen scrubbers
                                                       in Sec.
                                                       63.11496(d).
                                  b. Reduce           Comply with the
                                   emissions of        requirements of
                                   total organic HAP   Sec.   63.982(b)
                                   by routing          and the
                                   emissions through   requirements
                                   a closed-vent       referenced
                                   system to a flare   therein.
                                   (except that a
                                   flare may not be
                                   used to control
                                   halogenated vent
                                   streams), or
                                  c. Comply with the  Not applicable.
                                   alternative
                                   standard
                                   specified in Sec.
                                     63.2505, except
                                   as specified in
                                   Sec.
                                   63.11496(e).
3. Metal process vents..........  a. If total metal   Comply with Sec.
                                   HAP emissions are   63.11496(f).
                                   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.
4. Each storage tank............  a. Operate and      i. Comply with the
                                   maintain a          applicable
                                   floating roof or    inspection and
                                   closed-vent         testing
                                   system and          requirements in
                                   control device in   40 CFR
                                   accordance with     60.113b(a), (b),
                                   40 CFR 60.112b.     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.

[[Page 58383]]

 
5. Each cooling tower system      a. Comply with the  i. Repair each
 with a recirculation rate         requirements of     leak in
 >=8,000 gal/min.                  Sec.   63.104(c),   accordance with
                                   except as           Sec.   63.104(d)
                                   specified in Sec.   and (e), and
                                     63.11500(b), or  ii. Keep records
                                  b. Operate in        and submit
                                   accordance with     reports in
                                   Sec.   63.104(a).   accordance with
                                                       Sec.   63.104(f),
                                                       except as
                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                         63.11500(b).
                                                      Keep records
                                                       documenting
                                                       compliance with
                                                       the specified
                                                       operating
                                                       conditions.
6. Transfer operations..........  a. Control total    Not applicable.
                                   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.
7. Wastewater stream............  a. Discharge to     Maintain records
                                   onsite or offsite   identifying each
                                   treatment.          wastewater stream
                                                       and documenting
                                                       the type of
                                                       treatment that it
                                                       receives.
8. Wastewater stream containing   a. Use a decanter   i. For the water
 partially soluble HAP at a        or other            phase: comply
 concentration >=10,000 ppmw.      equipment based     with the
                                   on the operating    requirements in
                                   principle of        item 7 of this
                                   gravity             table, and
                                   separation to      ii. For the
                                   separate the        organic phase(s):
                                   water phase from    Recycle to a
                                   the organic         process, use as
                                   phase(s).           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 Sec.   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

[[Page 58384]]

 
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 Sec.   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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to Subpart
              Citation                        Subject                   VVVVVV?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),   Applicability..........  Yes.....................
 (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1),
 (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2),    Reserved...............  No......................
 (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2................................  Definitions............  Yes.....................
63.3................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.....................
63.4................................  Prohibited Activities    Yes.....................
                                       and Circumvention.
63.5................................  Preconstruction Review   Yes.....................
                                       and Notification
                                       Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7),       Compliance with          Yes.....................
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1),       Standards and
 (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix),    Maintenance
 (f) (g), (i), (j).                    Requirements.
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d),      Reserved...............  No......................
 (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-         .......................  No......................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
 (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9).                                                              include opacity or
                                                                                          visible emissions
                                                                                          standards or require a
                                                                                          continuous opacity
                                                                                          monitoring system.
63.7................................  Performance Testing      Yes.....................
                                       Requirements.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b),      Monitoring Requirements  Yes.....................
 (c)(1)-(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5).
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
                                                                                          Sec.   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 Sec.   63.11495(e).

[[Page 58385]]

 
63.8(g)(1)-(g)(4)...................  .......................  Yes.....................  Data reduction
                                                                                          requirements apply
                                                                                          only if you use CEMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          compliance with
                                                                                          alternative standard
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.11495(d).
                                                                                          COMS requirements do
                                                                                          not apply. Requirement
                                                                                          in Sec.   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 Sec.   63.11496.
                                                                                          CPMS requirements are
                                                                                          specified in 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 63, subparts SS
                                                                                          and FFFF as referenced
                                                                                          from Sec.   63.11496.
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4),      Notification             Yes.....................
 (b)(5), (c), (d), (e), (i), (j).      Requirements.
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 Sec.   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            Yes.....................
                                       Requirements.
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 Sec.   63.11495(e).
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(b)(2)(ix),          .......................  Yes.....................
 (b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv).
63.10(b)(3).........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(6), (c)(13)-  .......................  Yes.....................  Apply only if you use
 (c)(14).                                                                                 CEMS to demonstrate
                                                                                          compliance with
                                                                                          alternative standard
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.11496(d).
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(12),  .......................  Yes.....................
 (c)(15).
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)..........  Reserved...............  No......................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(4), (e)(1),  Reporting Requirements.  Yes.....................
 (e)(2), (f).
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 Sec.   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           Yes.....................
                                       Requirements.
63.12...............................  State Authorities and    Yes.....................
                                       Delegations.
63.13...............................  Addresses..............  Yes.....................
63.14...............................  Incorporations by        Yes.....................
                                       Reference.
63.15...............................  Availability of          Yes.....................
                                       Information and
                                       Confidentiality.
63.16...............................  Performance Track        Yes.....................
                                       Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-22518 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>