Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0087
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-10-29T04:00Z

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources; Proposed Rule (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV)

Response to Public Comments

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

October 16, 2009

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046080"  Table of Contents	  PAGEREF
_Toc234046080 \h  ii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046081"  List of Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc234046081
\h  iv  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046082"  Chapter 1  Introduction	1-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046082 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046084"  Chapter 2  Administrative and Legal
Issues	2-  PAGEREF _Toc234046084 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046086"  2.1	Administrative Issues	2-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046086 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046087"  2.2	Once In Always In Policy	2-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046087 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046088"  2.3	Notice and Comment on Area Source
Category Listing	2-  PAGEREF _Toc234046088 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046089"  2.4	Combination of Area Source
Categories	2-  PAGEREF _Toc234046089 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046090"  2.5	Other Issues	2-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046090 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046091"  Chapter 3  Applicability and Compliance
Dates.	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046091 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046093"  3.1	Applicability Terminology	3- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046093 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046094"  3.2	De Minimis Thresholds for Defining
an Affected Source	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046094 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046095"  3.3	Applicability or the Affected Source
Should be Narrowed	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046095 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046096"  3.4	Applicability for Specific Industry
Sectors	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046096 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046097"  3.5	Scope of the Chemical Manufacturing
Source Category	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046097 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046098"  3.5.1	Operations Subject to Other
Standards	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046098 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046099"  3.5.2	Exemptions for Chemical
Manufacturing Processes or Operations	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046099 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046100"  3.5.3	Exemptions for Non-Chemical
Manufacturing Operations	3-  PAGEREF _Toc234046100 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046101"  3.5.4	Processes That Use Catalysts	3- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046101 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046102"  3.6	Other Applicability Comments	3- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046102 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046103"  3.7	Compliance Dates	3-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046103 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046104"  Chapter 4  Requirements:  General	4- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046104 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046106"  4.1	HAP and Emission Points to Which
Standards Apply	4-  PAGEREF _Toc234046106 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046107"  4.2	De minimis Thresholds for Standards
4-  PAGEREF _Toc234046107 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046108"  4.3	Energetics	4-  PAGEREF _Toc234046108
\h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046109"  4.4	Management Practices	4-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046109 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046110"  4.5	Initial Compliance Demonstrations	4-
 PAGEREF _Toc234046110 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046111"  4.6	Monitoring Requirements	4-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046111 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046112"  4.7	Emission Averaging and Pollution
Prevention	4-  PAGEREF _Toc234046112 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046113"  Chapter 5  Requirements for Batch and
Continuous Process Vents	5-  PAGEREF _Toc234046113 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046115"  5.1	Batch Process Vents	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046115 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046116"  5.1.1	Emissions Calculations	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046116 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046117"  5.1.2	Batch Process Vent Standards	5- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046117 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046118"  5.2	Continuous Process Vents	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046118 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046119"  5.2.1	TRE Value	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046119 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046120"  5.2.2	Continuous Process Vent Standards
5-  PAGEREF _Toc234046120 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046121"  5.3	Other Requirements Related to
Process Vents	5-  PAGEREF _Toc234046121 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046122"  5.3.1	Streams Routed to Fuel Gas
Systems, Furnaces, or for Process Use	5-  PAGEREF _Toc234046122 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046123"  5.3.2	Requirements for Halogenated Vent
Streams	5-  PAGEREF _Toc234046123 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046124"  5.3.3	Combined Streams	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046124 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046125"  5.3.4	Other Definitions	5-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046125 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046126"  Chapter 6  Requirements for Metal HAP
Process Vents	6-  PAGEREF _Toc234046126 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046128"  6.1	Definitions	6-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046128 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046129"  6.2	Standards	6-  PAGEREF _Toc234046129
\h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046130"  6.3	Recordkeeping	6-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046130 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046131"  Chapter 7  Requirements for Equipment
Leaks	7-  PAGEREF _Toc234046131 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046133"  7.1	Type of Standards	7-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046133 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046134"  7.2	Exemptions	7-  PAGEREF _Toc234046134
\h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046135"  7.3	Confirmation of Leaks	7-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046135 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046136"  7.4	Inspections for Batch Operations	7- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046136 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046137"  7.5	Repair and Delay of Repair	7- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046137 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046138"  7.6	Recordkeeping	7-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046138 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046139"  Chapter 8  Requirements for Wastewater
8-  PAGEREF _Toc234046139 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046141"  8.1	Determining Affected Wastewater
Streams	8-  PAGEREF _Toc234046141 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046142"  8.2	Standards for Process Wastewater	8- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046142 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046143"  8.2.1	Other Treatment Issues	8-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046143 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046144"  8.2.2	Requirements for Separated Organic
Material	8-  PAGEREF _Toc234046144 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046145"  8.3	Requirements for Maintenance
Wastewater	8-  PAGEREF _Toc234046145 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046146"  8.4	Definition of “Recovery Device”
as it Relates to Wastewater	8-  PAGEREF _Toc234046146 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046147"  Chapter 9  Requirements for Storage
Tanks	9-  PAGEREF _Toc234046147 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046149"  9.1	Definitions	9-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046149 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046150"  9.2	Standards	9-  PAGEREF _Toc234046150
\h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046151"  9.3	Recordkeeping and Reporting	9- 
PAGEREF _Toc234046151 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046152"  Chapter 10  Requirements for Transfer
Operations	10-  PAGEREF _Toc234046152 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046154"  10.1	Exclusions from Definition of
Transfer Operations	10-  PAGEREF _Toc234046154 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046155"  10.2	Standards	10-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046155 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046156"  Chapter 11  Requirements for Heat
Exchange Systems	11-  PAGEREF _Toc234046156 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046158"  11.1	Monitoring Frequency	11-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046158 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046159"  11.2	Monitoring Plans	11-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046159 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046160"  11.3	Alternatives to Monitoring
Requirements	11-  PAGEREF _Toc234046160 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046161"  11.4	Delay of Repair	11-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046161 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046162"  Chapter 12  Recordkeeping and Reporting
12-  PAGEREF _Toc234046162 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046164"  Chapter 13  Other Comments	13-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046164 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046166"  13.1	Organization and Clarity of the
Rule	13-  PAGEREF _Toc234046166 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046167"  13.2	Cross References	13-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046167 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc234046168"  13.3	Inorganic ICR	13-  PAGEREF
_Toc234046168 \h  3  

 

List of Tables

1-1	  List of Commenters on Proposal 73 FR 58352	1-2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

Pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required 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).  On October 6, 2008, EPA proposed NESHAP 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
public comment period lasted from October 6, 2008 to January 5, 2009.  A
total of 36 comment letters were submitted to the EPA regarding the
proposed NESHAP for the chemical manufacturing area sources.  The
commenters included industry trade associations, chemical manufacturers,
industry consultants, environmental groups, government agencies, and
members of the public.  In addition, 2 speakers at a public hearing
provided comments on the proposed NESHAP.  Table 1-1 lists the names of
the commenters and their affiliations for each of the comments received
regarding the proposed rule, including the 2 speakers at the public
hearing.

  Many commenters supported the comments submitted by others.  By
convention, rather than identify all of the supporting commenters in
each discussion of issues raised by a primary commenter, we have decided
to identify the supporting commenters only in this chapter.  In the
remainder of this document it is to be understood that each reference to
the docket item number of a primary commenter stands for all of the
supporting commenters as well.  The supporting comments are as follows. 
Commenter 0050 concurred with comments submitted by Commenter 0053.
Commenters 0052, 0055, 0057, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0069, and
0070 supported comments submitted by Commenter 0060.  Commenter 0057
supported comments submitted by Commenter 0066.  Commenters 0064 and
0065 supported comments submitted by Commenter 0067.  Commenter 0068
supported comments submitted by Commenters 0062 and 0064.

The most significant comments are summarized and addressed in the
preamble to the final rule.  Chapters 2 through 13 of this document
summarize and provide responses to all of the other comments.  The
comments are grouped by subject areas, and the organization is similar
to the organization of the rule.

Table 1-1. List of Commenters on Proposal 73 FR 58352

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334	Commenter Name, Affiliation, Address,
and Date

0028	Paul Mikutis

Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals

October 14, 2008

0029	Terry L. O’Clair, P.E., Director

North Dakota Department of Health

Division of Air Quality

October 20, 2008

0030	Joel R. Hall

Security, Safety, Health, and Environmental Manager

INEOS Fluor Americas LLC

October 28, 2008

0031	Ty Squyres

November 1, 2008

0032a	Ray S. McAllister, Ph.D.

Regulatory Science and Policy Leader

CropLife America

October 31, 2008

0033	Danny Henderson

Arch Chemicals, Inc.

November 4, 2008

0034	Anonymous public comment

November 5, 2008

0035	D. Howard Gebhart, Manager

Environmental Compliance Section

James Wu, Asst. Manager

Environmental Compliance Section

Rebecca Thayer, Project Manager

Charity Larson, Project Manger

Margie Klitch, Senior Project Scientist

Allison Becker, Project Scientist

Laura Weber, Project Scientist

Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

November 4, 2008

0036	Vinson Hellwig, Michigan, Co-Chair

NACAA Air Toxics Committee

Robert Colby, Chattanooga, TN, Co-Chair

NACAA Air Toxics Committee

National Association of Clean Air Agencies

November 5, 2008

0037	Linda Kee

GREEN Environmental Consulting, Inc.

November 5, 2008

0039	Donald R. Schregaudus

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

Installations and Environment

November 4, 2008

0040a	Steve Poorman

SOCMA

October 21, 2008

0040b	Preston Howard

American Chemistry Council

October 21, 2008

0043, 0048	James P. Eckenrode, Manager

Environmental Health and Safety

Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC

November 19, 2008

0044	Richard S. Rosera, Environmental Specialist

Reckitt Benckiser Belle Mead Plant, Hillsborough, NJ

November 19, 2008

0045	Chelly Reesman, Environmental Engineer

JR. Simplot Company

October 31, 2008

0046	Brian Friedman, HSE Advisor

Champion Technologies, Inc.

October 28, 2008

0047	Dave Copeland, PE, Manager, Air Quality

Corporate Safety and Environmental Services

Praxair, Inc.

November 24, 2008

0049	Kevin P. Batt, P.E., EH&S and Sustainability

Operations Regulatory Management

Dow Chemical Company

December 22, 2008

0050	Linda Farrington

Eli Lilly and Company

December 22, 2008

0051	Shelley Kaderly, Air Quality Division Administrator

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

December 22, 2008

0052	John F. Finn, Director

Environmental Affairs

OMNOVA Solutions Inc.

December 30, 2008

0053	Michael Garvin, Pharm.D., Assistant Vice President

Scientific and Regulatory Affairs

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

December 23, 2008

0054	Annette Fulgenzi, Chair

National Steering Committee

Small Business Ombudsman and Small Business Environmental Assistance
Programs (SBO/SBEAP)

December 23, 2008

0055	Matthew J. Lynch, Corporate Environmental Director

Health, Safety, and Environmental Department

Toxicology and Regulatory Affairs

Albemarle Corporation

January 5, 2009

0056	Rich Raiders

Environment and Sustainable Development Department

Arkema, Inc.

January 5, 2009

0057	Nelson Lawson, Ph.D., Chairman

Environmental, Health, and Safety Committee

Pine Chemical Association

January 5, 2009

0058	C.L. Wrobel

Emerald Performance Materials, LLC

January 5, 2009

0059, 0061	Katie Renshaw

James Pew

Zoe Maxfield, Litigation Assistant

Earthjustice

January 6, 2009

0060	James Griffin, Senior Director

The American Chemistry Council

January 5, 2009

0062	Ray S. McAllister, Ph.D.

Regulatory Science and Policy Leader

CropLife America

January 5, 2009

0063	Robert J. Morehouse

ExxonMobil

Refining and Supply Company

Downstream and Chemical SH&E

January 5, 2009

0064	Dave Darling, P.E., Director, Environmental Affairs

Alison A. Keane, Esq., Counsel, Government Affairs

National Paint and Coatings Association

January 5, 2009

0065	C. Tucker Helmes, Ph.D., Executive Director

Ecological and Toxicological Association of Dyes and Organic Pigments
Manufacturers (ETAD)

January 5, 2009

0066	W. Martin Heyne, Vice President, Operations

MeadWestvaco Corporation

January 5, 2009

0067	Daniel Moss, Manager, Government Relations

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)

January 5, 2009

0068	John A. Dege, Jr., Leader, Air Competency

E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (DuPont)

January 5, 2009

0069	Barry Christensen, Manager Air Quality

Corporate Health, Environment, Safety, and Security Department

Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem)

On behalf of Occidental Chemical Corporation and Oxy Vinyls, L.P.

January 5, 2009

0070	Matthew Todd

American Petroleum Institute (API)

January 5, 2009

a Requesting extension of comment period



Chapter 2

 Administrative and Legal Issues

2.1	Administrative Issues

Comment:  One commenter (0049) suggested that EPA re-propose certain
portions of the regulation that are mentioned in the preamble but are
not included in the proposed rule text, such as (1) the definitions of
storage tank and wastewater, because the rule text contained less
comprehensive exemptions than were described in the preamble; and (2)
the compliance options for transfer operations, because the preamble
identified bottom loading as a viable option, but the rule mentioned
only submerged loading.  The commenter stated that doing this will allow
the regulated community the opportunity to provide comments prior to
finalizing the rule.  

Response:  We disagree with the comment.  Re-proposing is not necessary
because the rule went out for public comment, and the public had an
opportunity to comment on both the preamble language and rule text and
any inconsistencies.  Furthermore, the Agency is under a Court imposed
deadline to finalize this rule by October 16, 2009, and the Agency does
not have sufficient time to re-propose the rule.  We have, however,
corrected the inconsistencies that the commenter noted by changing the
rule text to reflect our intended definitions for storage tanks,
wastewater, and submerged loading as described in the preamble to the
proposed rule.

2.2	Once In Always In Policy

Comment:  One commenter (0064) stated that EPA should allow a facility
subject to the chemical manufacturing area source rule to “opt out”
of the rule if the facility eliminated the processing, use, production,
or generation of all 15 Table 1 HAP of concern, and a second commenter
(0067) indicated that some sources may wish to avoid the costs and
liability associated with the area source rule by ceasing to process any
of the 15 listed Table 1 HAP.  The two commenters (0064 and 0067) noted
that some have questioned whether facilities would have this freedom
after the effective date of the rule or whether the “once-in,
always-in” policy applies to facilities subject to area source
standards as well as to major sources subject to MACT rules.  Both
commenters believed, based on its terms, the policy applies only to
major sources.   One commenter (0067) added that they believe there is
no comparable EPA guidance that would purport to limit the ability of
area sources to escape coverage by an area source standard.  This
commenter also stated that given EPA’s announced intention to rescind
the policy (72 FR 71, January 3, 2007) and the cogent criticisms of the
policy as stated in that notice, it would be counterintuitive for EPA to
adopt a comparable policy for area sources.  This commenter also stated
that it would not be sensible for EPA to require a source that wishes to
avoid being covered by the proposed area source rule to obtain a permit
under which it agrees not to process, produce, use, or generate and of
the listed HAP.  To clarify the situation, one commenter (0064) asked
EPA to officially confirm in the final rulemaking that the policy is not
applicable to facilities in the chemical manufacturing area source
category or any other area source categories.  Another commenter (0067)
stated that EPA should simply confirm in the final rule that facilities
will remain free at any time to eliminate their processing, use,
generation and production of Table 1 HAP and thus become exempt
prospectively from this rule.

One commenter (0064) stated that EPA should finalize the “once-in,
always-in” rule for major source facilities that would rescind the
policy and allow such sources to become area sources either by accepting
permit limits that would keep them below major source emission levels or
by discontinuing the use of HAP.  Another commenter (0049) suggested
that EPA consider allowing a facility that is currently subject to a
MACT standard to instead comply with the provisions for existing sources
in the chemical manufacturing area source rule if emissions from the
facility/site are reduced to less than major source trigger levels
(e.g., parts of a major source have been sold and are under different
ownership and are now area sources or parts of a large site have
shutdown). 

Response:  The OIAI policy does not apply to area sources and thus the
commenters concerns are misplaced.  Furthermore, in response to other
comments, we have revised the scope of the final rule so that it applies
to each chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) that emits a HAP
listed in Table 1 to the final rule (Table 1 HAP) and not the entire
facility if any CMPU within the facility emits a Table 1 HAP.  If an
affected area source stops using all Table 1 HAP in a CMPU, then the
facility is not subject to the rule for that process as long as the
source does not use a Table 1 HAP in that process.  Likewise, if a
facility stops using Table 1 HAP at all its CMPUs, the facility is no
longer subject to the final rule.  With this change, we believe we have
addressed in part some of the concerns raised in these comments.

In this rulemaking effort we are dealing only with comments that are
relevant to the chemical manufacturing area source NESHAP.  Because the
OIAI policy does not apply to area sources, that policy is not germane
to this rulemaking and we need not address the remainder of the comments
concerning the OIAI policy and its applicability to major sources of
HAP. 

2.3	Notice and Comment on Area Source Category Listing

Comment:  One commenter (0064) stated that EPA did not provide adequate
notice and opportunity to comment on the area source category listings. 
On November 22, 2002, EPA promulgated revisions to the area source
category listing.  The notice added 23 new area source categories to be
regulated.  Stakeholders were not afforded the opportunity to comment on
the listing.  The commenter stated that the listing is an important part
of the regulatory framework and EPA should have provided those impacted
with an opportunity for comment.

Response:  On November 22, 2002 , EPA added the final area source
categories necessary to satisfy the requirements of CAA sections
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) to identify and list area source categories
representing at least 90 percent of the emissions from the 30 Urban HAP.
 The CAA does not require the Agency to provide a public comment period
when a category is listed under section 112(c)(3).  If the commenter
believes that the listing was improper, the proposed rule provided an
opportunity to comment on the listing and CAA section 112(e)(4) states
that listing decisions may be challenged when the Agency issues emission
standards for a category.  

2.4	Combination of Area Source Categories

Comment:  One commenter (0064) stated that EPA has arbitrarily combined
nine unique source categories under one rulemaking.  According to the
commenter, EPA must, at a minimum, account for the differences within
each industry in the rulemaking.  Commenters 0050 and 0053 noted that
regulating the nine source categories via a single rulemaking may enable
EPA to implement a more efficient rulemaking process, but the detailed
provisions of the rule must be suitable and warranted for all nine
source categories.

	Response:  The EPA combined the nine area source categories in one
rulemaking because all nine source categories are described by the same
industrial classification.  The approach taken is similar to our
approach for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
(MON), 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.  In that rule, the EPA regulated 21
source categories (November 22, 1996 (FR 57602)).  The EPA determined
that the process equipment, emission characteristics, and applicable
control technologies are similar for the broad group of sources and
developed a single set of emission standards for the group of
miscellaneous chemical processes.  The EPA also determined that, for
purposes of characterizing and controlling process emissions,
distinctions based on whether the production of these organic chemicals
is a formulation operation or a chemical reaction, and whether the
process vessel is a batch or continuous reactor, are more significant
than differences among the final chemical products themselves.  Also,
EPA found that many of the organic chemical processes are co-located
within individual facilities.  Facilities with collocated organic
chemical processes could more easily comply with a single set of
emission standards than with individual standards for each of the
collocated processes.  Another justification for developing a single set
of emission standards to regulate production of a variety of organic
chemicals is that it would be less costly for EPA to develop a single
standard than to develop separate standards for several individually
listed source categories which have similar emission characteristics and
applicable control technologies.  Moreover, a single set of emission
standards could cover production of future (i.e., not yet produced)
organic chemicals.  

	For all these reasons, we disagree that the Agency made an arbitrary
decision when combining the nine categories and we maintain that the
required emission controls are suitable for the sources in the nine
categories

2.5	Other Issues

Comment:  One commenter (0064) was concerned that the area source
court-ordered deadlines have caused the proposed standards to be driven
by inaccurate information and arbitrary deadlines instead of sound
science and cooperative efforts.  

Response:  We disagree with this comment.  The best available
information was used to develop the proposed rule.  We gathered
information from the NEI and TRI databases, publicly available company
information, and current State and Federal regulations.  Regarding the
court-ordered deadline, the Court extended EPA’s deadline for the nine
area source categories from December 15, 2008, to May 15, 2009.  As a
result, the public comment period was extended from November 20, 2008,
to January 5, 2009, to allow more time for interested parties to prepare
comprehensive comments.  The deadline for final promulgation was
extended two additional times and the deadline is now October 16, 2009. 
We have considered the information contained in the comments on the
proposed rule and, in response to some comments, made changes to the
final rule that reflect the new information.  

Chapter 3.

 Applicability and Compliance Dates

3.1	Applicability Terminology

Comment:  Numerous commenters (0030, 0033, 0035, 0037, 0044, 0045, 0052,
0063, and 0067) requested clarification of §63.11494(a).  For example,
several commenters (0030, 0035, 0044, 0045, and 0052) suggested that the
rule define “process, use, produce, or generate,” and one commenter
(0063) asked how byproducts, coproducts, waste, and intermediates are
characterized.  One commenter (0035) asked if creating trace levels of a
listed HAP during production is considered production or generation that
makes the rule applicable.  Commenter 0067 recommended using only the
terms “feedstocks and products” because it is not clear how
“generate” is different from “produce” or how “use” is
different from “process.”  Commenter 0037 recommended removing the
term “generate” because it is duplicative.  Commenter 0033 stated
that the term “chemical manufacturing operation” should be defined. 
Commenter 0063 also noted that the absence of concentration criteria for
the words “process, use, produce, or generate” suggests that even
one molecule could trigger applicability.

Response:  As discussed in the response to comments in the preamble, the
final rule defines applicability based on process units that meet
specified criteria, rather than facility-wide chemical manufacturing
operations.  In addition to this change in the basis for applicability
under the rule, we also made a number of changes to terminology and the
organization of material in section 63.11494(a) to clarify our intent. 
Because “process, use, produce, or generate” was confusing and
partially redundant, we replaced this language with more descriptive
language.  The word “use” refers to materials that are introduced to
the process; therefore, we replaced this word with “use as
feedstocks”.  The words “generate” and “produce” could be
considered as equivalent, but our intent was to distinguish between
byproducts and the intended product(s) of a process; therefore, we
replaced these words with “generate as byproducts or produce as
products”.  Products are any material that the process is being
operated to produce (generally, but not exclusively, by reaction).  The
word “process” does not have a unique meaning; therefore, we
eliminated this word from the final rule.

As discussed in the preamble for the final rule, the section 112(k)
inventory for the chemical manufacturing area source categories was
primarily based on the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).  Under 40
CFR 372.38, the TRI does not require reporting of emissions from
mixtures that contain toxic chemicals at concentrations less than 0.1
percent (for carcinogens) or less than 1.0 percent (for noncarcinogens).
 Therefore, the section 112(k) inventory would not have included
emissions from operations involving chemicals below these concentration
levels.  The purpose of the second sentence in §63.11494(a) (i.e.,
“Feedstocks and products that contain Table 1 HAP…”) was to
specify that operations in which mixtures are not subject to TRI
reporting also are not subject part of the chemical manufacturing area
source category and are not subject to the rule.  According to 40 CFR
372.38, the mixtures of interest may be received from someone else (in
the proposed rule, these are covered by the term “feedstock”) or
they may be produced by mixing the specified toxic chemicals or causing
a chemical reaction that creates any of the toxic chemicals (in the
proposed rule, these mixtures were intended to be covered by the term
“products”).  Thus, the term “products” refers to mixtures
anywhere in a process unit that contain generated or produced chemical
manufacturing Table 1 HAP at a concentration above either of the
specified concentration thresholds.  Under the CMPU-based applicability
for the final rule, if the generated/produced Table 1 HAP are below the
specified concentrations at all points in the CMPU (and feedstocks do
not contain Table 1 HAP at concentrations above these same thresholds),
then the CMPU is not subject to the final rule.  To clarify this point,
§63.11494(a)(3) of the final rule specifies one criterion that must be
met for a CMPU to be subject to the rule.  Specifically, a CMPU is
subject if “Table 1 HAP are present in feedstocks, or Table 1 HAP are
generated or produced in the CMPU and are present in process fluid, at
concentrations 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.”  

Comment:  One commenter (0035) asked whether an area source must meet
all of the criteria specified in §63.11494(a) or any one of them to be
subject to the rule. Specifically, the commenter asked if a facility
with the following characteristics would be subject to the rule: (1) it
is in the chemical manufacturing sector, (2) it operates a process that
generates emissions of a HAP listed in Table 1 to the rule, and (3) the
amount of that HAP in the products produced by the process is less than
0.1 percent or 1.0 percent, whichever threshold is applicable for the
specific HAP.

Response:  For a facility to be subject, all of the criteria specified
in the final rule must be met.  However, as noted in the response to the
preceding comment, the concentration threshold for products in the final
rule applies to Table 1 HAP generated in the process, typically by a
reaction, and Table 1 HAP in feedstocks.

Comment:  One commenter (0049) stated that the chemical manufacturing
operations should not include cooling tower systems because they are
regulated separately and are not directly used in the manufacturing of
product.  This commenter also stated that wastewater systems should be
removed from the chemical manufacturing operations to be consistent with
other changes suggested for the definition of wastewater.

Response:  As noted in the preamble, applicability in the final rule is
based on CMPUs that involve Table 1 HAP instead of all “chemical
manufacturing operations”.  We also excluded “heat exchange
systems” and “wastewater systems” from the definition of a CMPU in
section 63.11494(b) for the reasons cited by the commenter (see the
preamble for a discussion of the change in terminology from “cooling
tower systems” to heat exchange systems) and included them in the
definition of the affected source in section 63.11494(d).  These changes
also make the definitions of “CMPU” and “affected source”
consistent with definitions of the same terms in MACT rules such as the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP (MON).

3.2	De Minimis Thresholds for Defining an Affected Source

Comment:  Two commenters (0065 and 0069) supported the 0.1/1.0 percent
thresholds for feedstocks.  Commenter 0065 noted that applicability can
be readily determined by reviewing the MSDS, and these levels exclude
trace impurities that are not significant sources of emissions.

Response:  We appreciate the support.  As discussed in section 3.1 these
thresholds were included because the original area source emissions
inventory was based on TRI data, which did not include emissions of HAP
present in feedstocks at concentrations below these thresholds.  Also
note that responses to other comments below describe a number of changes
and clarifications to the applicability provisions in the final rule.   
     

Comment:  One commenter (0069) asked for clarification of whether the
MSDS information alone is sufficient for making determinations even if
more detailed analyses regarding impurity levels become available in the
future.  Another commenter (0062) stated that pesticide formulators may
not be aware that they are using a Table 1 HAP in a formulation because:
 (1) formulation information is protected under FIFRA as CBI, (2) it is
common practice for suppliers of inert ingredient blends not to disclose
the content of blends to their customers (i.e., the pesticide
formulators), and (3) the requirements for listing specific compounds on
MSDS for a given proprietary blend are unclear, and compliance with such
requirements is uncertain.  The commenter also noted that this practice
may not be specific to the pesticide industry sector and should be
accounted for in the GACT determination and economic analysis.  A third
commenter (0052) stated that EPA should specifically allow area source
facilities to rely on MSDS information to determine the HAP content of
raw materials.  Commenter 0044 asked if a facility would be subject to
the rule if one of the Table 1 HAP were to be detected in wastewater,
even though it is not listed on an MSDS for raw materials.

Response:  The final rule specifically states that you may rely on the
MSDS as one source of information to demonstrate that the concentrations
of Table 1 HAP in feedstocks are below the 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent
thresholds.  However, this assumes formulation information for hazardous
compounds present at levels above these thresholds is provided on the
MSDS.  If the MSDS indicates that specific chemical identities are being
withheld as a trade secret, you must rely on other information to
demonstrate that the Table 1 HAP concentrations are below the specified
thresholds.  Once MSDS or other information is used to demonstrate that
concentrations in feedstocks are below the thresholds, the presence of
Table 1 HAP elsewhere in the process or wastewater that could have come
only from the feedstock (i.e., not produced or generated) does not
trigger applicability.

Comment:  Two commenters (0037 and 0067) requested changes in
§63.11494(a) to clarify that if a feedstock contains Table 1 HAP below
the proposed de minimis levels (i.e., 0.1 percent for an Table 1 HAP
that is a carcinogen or 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens), then subsequent
processing activities that increase the concentration to levels above
the applicable de minimis threshold do not trigger applicability. 

Response:  The commenters’ interpretation is correct.  The final rule
states only that the concentration in the feedstock (or the
concentration of produced or generated Table 1 HAP) must be above the
threshold for the process to be subject.  Thus, if the concentration of
Table 1 HAP in a feedstock (and the concentration of produced or
generated Table 1 HAP) is below the specified threshold (and that Table
1 HAP is not also generated or produced in the CMPU), no further
evaluation of the process is required for the Table 1 HAP in that
feedstock.

Comment:  Numerous commenters (0033, 0035, 0037, 0040 [SOCMA], 0044,
0045, 0046, 0049, 0052, 0053, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0065, 0067, and 0068)
requested that EPA establish one or more additional de minimis
applicability thresholds below which area sources that process or emit
small amounts of Table 1 HAP would be exempt from the rule.  For
example, some commnters requested a more comprehensive version of the
proposed 0.1/1.0 percent concentration thresholds that includes fuels,
by-products, co-products, intermediates, HAP generated in the process,
and/or catalysts.  Other commenters requested a mass-based HAP usage or
processing threshold (e.g., 2 Mg/yr or 25,000 lb/yr), actual or
uncontrolled HAP emissions thresholds between 50 lb/yr and 6.25 tons/yr,
a threshold based on the quantity of HAP stored onsite (consistent with
the criteria that are used to determine SARA 311/312 Tier 2 reporting
thresholds), or a combination of thresholds.  

Most of the commenters argued that de minimis thresholds have been used
in previous NESHAP and are needed in this rule as well to prevent small
sources from being subject to extensive regulatory requirements
(including inspections) that would achieve minimal environmental
benefit, would be unduly burdensome and costly, and were not considered
in GACT analyses.  According to two commenters (0053 and 0067), EPA has
authority to establish de minimis thresholds (see the preamble for a
discussion of the legal arguments suggested by the commenters regarding
de minimis thresholds).  One commenter (0037) noted that an annual
emissions threshold would help to prevent what is effectively
double-regulation for small sites located in nonattainment areas (e.g.,
some facilities are already subject to process vent controls and LDAR
requirements under SIP regulations).  According to one commenter (0045),
a threshold is needed to address situations where HAP is processed but
none is emitted.  One commenter (0065) noted that HAP usage and
emissions thresholds would clearly exclude low-emitting formulation
facilities that might otherwise face uncertainty about how their
operations are classified.  One commenter suggested that actual
emissions thresholds would provide incentive for companies to control
their emissions to levels much lower than the proposed uncontrolled
emissions thresholds above which control is required.  One commenter
(0067) recommended using a threshold based on actual emissions rather
than uncontrolled emissions because most facilities are likely to have
determined their actual emissions, whereas estimating uncontrolled
emissions is usually a time-consuming and unproductive exercise.

Response:    We recognize that some facilities with minimal emissions
will be subject to the rule.  However, as discussed in the preamble to
the final rule, the Agency is directed under CAA section 112(c)(3) “to
ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area sources
emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest
threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas are subject
to regulation under this section.”  See also CAA section 112(k)(3)(B).
 For this reason, sources emitting Table 1 HAP and meeting the other
applicability criteria in the final rule are subject to the final rule.

Comment:  According to one commenter (0067), a batch facility “cannot
practically and economically assess the applicability of a rule that is
triggered by the instantaneous, one-time use of an [Table 1 HAP]”
because of the constantly changing raw materials, products, and other
characteristics of batch operations.  Therefore, the commenter
recommended that EPA allow facilities to assess applicability
retrospectively on an annual basis (i.e., once per year a facility would
review all of the processes operated in the past 12 months to determine
if any processes triggered applicability of the rule).  The commenter
also stated that under this option the facility should have 3 years to
come into compliance after the startup date of the first process that
triggered applicability, just as in the proposed rule for existing
sources.

Response:  Applicability is based on the use, generation, or production
of Table 1 HAP.  We do not understand why this would be more easily
determined after the fact.  Furthermore, we reject the commenter’s
suggestion because it means a facility would be allowed to operate
processes for up to a year (and perhaps longer) without complying with
applicable standards.  Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, only
existing sources on the date the rule is promulgated have three years to
come into compliance.  See the preamble to the final rule for additional
discussion of compliance dates.

Although we reject the commenter’s suggestion, the final rule differs
from the proposed rule in a number of ways that may alleviate the
commenter’s concerns.  For example, the final rule is applicable to
CMPUs and associated heat exchange systems and wastewater systems that
involve Table 1 HAP, rather than all chemical manufacturing operations
(see the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of this change). 
This change eliminates situations where all process units would have to
be in compliance upon startup after the initial compliance date of a
single process that involves Table 1 HAP and it makes it easier to
estimate annual emissions by estimating the number of batches to be run
in a CMPU. 

3.3	Applicability or the Affected Source Should be Narrowed

Comment:  One commenter (0060) noted that wastes and non-isolated
intermediates can occur in many processes that are not chemical
manufacturing operations.  Thus, the commenter stated that the rule must
specify that only products and isolated intermediates should be
considered when determining if a process unit is an affected process
unit.

Response:  In the final rule, a CMPU is defined based on the NAICS code
of a product or isolated intermediate, as in many other rules in 40 CFR
part 63.

3.4	Applicability for Specific Industry Sectors

Comment:  Two commenters (0050 and 0053) questioned whether all 15 Table
1 HAP should be regulated from each of the nine source categories. 
According to the commenters, the applicability criteria for each source
category should include only those Table 1 HAP that are emitted from
facilities in that source category.  For example, the commenters
reviewed EPA’s database and concluded that pharmaceutical
manufacturing facilities should be subject only if their operations
involve methylene chloride, chloroform, or ethylene dichloride because
these are the only Table 1 HAP emitted by the pharmaceutical industry in
quantities significant enough to justify regulation and enable a
cost-effective GACT determination.

One commenter (0053) also noted that although some pharmaceutical
manufacturing area sources use metal HAP in nutrients or catalysts, the
only meaningful metal HAP emissions at these facilities are from boilers
and other fuel combustion devices that are not directly associated with
chemical manufacturing processes.  The commenter pointed out that the
TRI data that EPA relied on for this rulemaking does not allow metal
emissions from combustion devices to be distinguished from manufacturing
emissions.  Thus, it was not clear to the commenter what rationale EPA
used for regulating metal HAP from pharmaceutical production operations.

Response:  We have determined that regulation of 15 Table 1 HAP from the
chemical manufacturing industry are needed to meet the requirement of
CAA sections 112(c)(3) to regulate area source representing emissions of
90 percent of Table 1 HAP.  Although facilities in a specific segment of
the chemical manufacturing industry may not have emitted all the Table 1
HAP during the year the database was based on, they may have in the
past, and more importantly, may emit such HAP in the future.  We are
issuing the rule to account for future growth in and changes to the
source categories subject to this rule.  

3.5	Scope of the Chemical Manufacturing Source Category

Comment:  According to three commenters (0060, 0064, and 0067), the rule
should apply only to facilities where NAICS code 325 is the primary code
for the site.  One commenter (0060) believed GACT would be different for
facilities where chemical manufacturing is not the primary function of
the site and that EPA’s database does not include such facilities. 
The commenter cited terminals and facilities that conduct coating and
printing operations as examples of facilities that should be exempt
because their primary NAICS code is not 325.  Another commenter (0064)
stated that EPA arbitrarily expanded the scope of the rulemaking from
sources where chemical manufacturing is the primary activity (NAICS code
325) to all chemical manufacturing operations.  This commenter also was
concerned that the expanded scope and accelerated schedule mean many
impacted facilities, especially small businesses, do not know of the
rulemaking and have not been given the opportunity for adequate notice
and comment. 

Response:  The intent is for the rule to apply to all chemical
manufacturing processes that are classified under NAICS 325.  These
processes may not always operate at facilities for which the primary
NAICS code is 325.  For example, an area source that makes formaldehyde,
phenolic resins, and particleboard would be subject to the rule for the
formaldehyde and resin manufacturing, even if the primary NAICS for the
facility is for the particleboard production.  We also reject the
suggestion to base applicability on the NAICS code for the primary
function of a site because the primary function may be disputable.  

Applicability for the final rule is determined on a CMPU basis.  In
addition, standards apply to individual emission points associated with
or within the CMPU.  Therefore, we believe that GACT for any regulated
emission point is the same regardless of the main production activity at
the facility.  

Marine terminals are classified under NAICS 48831 and therefore are not
subject to the final rule.  Coating operations are not covered because
they are an end use application of chemical products, not chemical
manufacturing itself.  Note that the final rule also states that
“ancillary operations” related to the preparation of coatings prior
to application by end users are also not subject to the rule (see
comment below).  Other specific manufacturing operations are discussed
in the comments and responses below.

In regards to providing for adequate notice and comment, the comment
period was extended from November 20, 2008 to January 5, 2009.   

3.5.1	Operations Subject to Other Standards

Comment:  One commenter (0056) stated EPA should clarify in §63.11494
that any area source operating units regulated under any existing MACT
standard (§63.1 through §63.9999) are exempt or automatically
considered to be complying with the chemical manufacturing area source
NESHAP.

Response:  CMPUs that meet the applicability criteria in the final area
source rule are subject to this rule.  The applicability criteria state,
in part, that the CMPU is subject if it is located at an area source.  

Comment:  Three commenters (0049, 0060, and 0064) stated that the
applicable NAICS codes should be included with the exemption for the
manufacture of paint and allied products in §63.11494(c)(1)(i) to
eliminate confusion.  For example, commenter 0060 indicated that the
proposed general reference to source categories for which regulations
have not yet been finalized is confusing because sources cannot be sure
if they will be subject to a particular subpart until applicability of
that subpart is final.  According to all three commenters, the rule
should more clearly state that the rule does not apply to paint and
coating manufacturing (NAICS 32551) and adhesives manufacturing (NAICS
32552).  Commenters 0060 and 0064 added that exemptions for NAICS codes
325910 (Printing Ink Manufacturing), and 325998 (Other Manufacturing)
also should be specifically cited.

Response:  The chemical manufacturing area source rule does not cover
manufacture of paints and allied products as defined in 40 CFR 63.11607
of  the area source standards for the Manufacture of Paints and Allied
Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC.  The final rule states that
it does not apply to the paints and allied products manufacturing area
source category, which includes printing ink manufacturing.  The final
rule also states that it does not apply to manufacture of chemicals
classified in NAICS code 325998.  These chemicals are part of the
chemical preparations manufacturing area source category.  

Comment:  One commenter (0049) asked for clarification of the exemption
from the future area source rule for manufacture of chemical
preparations in §63.11494(c)(1)(ii).  It was not clear to the commenter
what operations and what NAICS codes are included in this source
category.  Another commenter (0060) also requested clarification because
a source cannot be sure if they will be subject to a rule until
applicability of the rule is final.

Response:  The chemical manufacturing area source rule covers production
of all material described in NAICS code 325, except for operations
listed in §63.11494(c).  Chemical preparation products include
materials described in NAICS code 325998 and §63.11494(c) specifically
excludes NAICS code 325998 from applicability of this rule.     

Comment:  One commenter (0069) stated that the exemption for mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants subject to subpart IIIII should be broadened to
include all existing chlorine manufacturing plants, regardless of the
type of manufacturing technology used.  The commenter pointed out that
EPA evaluated the subcategory of non-mercury cell chlorine production
facilities and concluded that chlorine and hydrochloric acid were the
only HAP emitted and determined that they need not be subject to
additional MACT or area source controls (67 FR 44715, July 3, 2002; and
68 FR 70948, December 19, 2003).

If non-mercury cell chlorine processes are not exempted from the rule,
the commenter requested that emergency control systems be exempted from
the process vent requirements.  The commenter explained that these
emergency control systems typically operate with greater than 99 percent
efficiency for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP.

Response:  Area source categories were listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3) and are not necessarily the same as major source categories. 
However, if commenter is correct that chlorine and hydrochloric acid are
the only HAP emitted and no Table 1 HAP are emitted, non-mercury cell
chlorine processes are not covered by the final rule.  Therefore, an
exemption for either the process or emergency control systems is not
needed.

3.5.2	Exemptions for Chemical Manufacturing Processes or Operations

Comment:  Several commenters (0049, 0050, 0053, and 0060) suggested
excluding NAICS 325414 for Biological Products.  According to two
commenters (0050 and 0053), regulating biological processes under
subpart VVVVVV is inappropriate, unnecessary, and will not result in any
meaningful reductions because (1) the only Table 1 HAP present in
biological processes are metal HAP compounds in nutrients that remain
dissolved in the aqueous media and are not emitted, (2) the use of these
nutrients has not been shown to present a threat or adverse risk to
public health or the environment, (3) only 0.2 percent of the emissions
in EPA’s database can be attributed to biological processes, and (4)
EPA has not explained why the pharmaceuticals production source category
needs to include biological products production for area sources when it
was not regulated at major sources.  Furthermore, it is unclear to
commenter 0053 whether EPA may include additional sources without
showing that they warrant regulation, as required by section 112(c)(3)
of the CAA.

Response:  Production of biological products is included in the final
rule because it is covered by NAICS code 325, and it was included in the
area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3) of the CAA. 
However, the use of materials that do not result in HAP emissions would
not have been considered in the original listing.  To address these
situations, the final rule includes the concept of “articles”
similar to the use of this concept in the Community Right-to-Know
regulations in 40 CFR part 372.  An article is a manufactured item: (1)
which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2)
which has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape
or design during end use; and (3) which does not release a toxic
chemical under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at
the facility or establishment.  If a source using an article under
normal conditions and, therefore, it does not in fact emit Table 1 HAP,
the source is not subject to the final rule. 

	Comment:  Two commenters (0049 and 0060) requested an exemption for
carbon monoxide production to be consistent with the applicability in
the MON.

	Response:  Carbon monoxide production is covered by NAICS 325.  The
chemical manufacturing area source rule applies to production of
inorganic compounds as well as organic compounds, provided the process
involves Table 1 HAP.  Therefore, carbon monoxide production has not
been excluded from the final rule.

Comment:  Two commenters (0056 and 0069) requested an exemption for
remediation systems related to former site activities.  If remediation
systems are not exempt, commenter 0056 expressed concern that a facility
would have to make changes to a currently permitted wastewater treatment
system that is shared between the remediation system and chemical
manufacturing operations not otherwise subject to the rule.

Response:  The final rule applies to process units related to chemical
manufacturing that is covered by NAICS 325.  Site remediation does not
meet this criterion because it is covered by NAICS 562910.  Therefore
site remediation is clearly exempt from the final rule.  We do not
believe an explicit exemption in the final rule is needed to clarify
this point.  

Comment:  Two commenters (0033 and 0060) requested clarification of
whether facilities that only blend HAP materials with no chemical
reaction are subject to the rule, and one commenter (0062) stated that
the rule should explicitly exempt blending operations because it appears
to the commenter that such operations were not included in EPA’s
database and were not considered in the supporting analyses.  Another
commenter (0065) stated that the final rule should retain the proposed
exemption for blending operations because dye formulation operations
(i.e., blending) is an insignificant source of emissions.

	Response:  This rule covers material produced by blending, mixing,
dilution, or other formulation operations that are described by NAICS
325 and are not a coating operations.  General applicability is the same
as for subpart FFFF.  

Comment:  One commenter (0065) requested an exemption for dye
manufacturing because:  (1) Table 1 HAP have little potential to be
emitted from the process (chromium compounds, hydrazine, and manganese
compounds are the only Table 1 HAP used in the process; small amounts of
chloroform, ethylene dichloride, and methylene chloride may be used for
cleaning; and any other Table 1 HAP, if present, are present only as
trace impurities); (2) production of dyes in the U.S. has declined
significantly in the past 10 years (thus, emissions from 2002 are no
longer relevant); and (3) much of the U.S. industry has shifted to dye
formulation (i.e., blending, mixing, and compounding purchased dyes from
overseas), which has a much lower potential for emissions.

Response:  Dye production is covered by NAICS 325.  Therefore, it is
subject to the final rule.  The fact that production levels have
declined in recent years is not relevant to this determination.

Comment:  Two commenters (0049 and 0060) suggested editorial changes to
§63.11494(c)(2)(ii) to exclude production of photographic chemicals.

Response:  The commenters did not explain why they suggested this
change, and it may have been inadvertent as they tried to improve
clarity by splitting the paragraph into two smaller paragraphs. 
However, we want to point out why we have not made the suggested change.
 Because NAICS code 325992 describes both chemical and non-chemical
manufacturing operations related to photography products we included a
provision exempting the non-chemical manufacturing operations.  But in
an effort to clarify the scope of the exemption, we followed this
provision with a statement specifying that this subpart does apply to
the production of photographic chemicals.  We continue to think it is
important to make this distinction.  Thus, the proposed language has
been retained in the final rule.

 Comment:  One commenter (0028) requested clarification of whether a
facility is subject to the rule if incidental amounts of a chemical
manufacturing Table 1 HAP are formed by decomposition of products in the
wastewater system.

Response:  The final rule uses CMPUs as the basis for determining
applicability.  Wastewater systems are part of the affected source, but
they are not part of a process unit.  Therefore, pollutants generated in
a wastewater system are not considered in determining applicability of
the rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0063) supported the exclusion of fabricating
operations because these facilities have no or minimal HAP.  The
commenter also indicated that the description provides sufficient
clarity for potentially impacted facilities to assess applicability.

Response:  We appreciate the support.

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that section 63.11494(c) of the
rule should specifically state that SSM emissions are not to be
considered in determining applicability of the rule.

Response:  As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, applicability
is based on the use, generation, or production of Table 1 HAP, not
specific emission scenarios.  We do not believe a change in the rule is
needed to make this clear.

Exemptions for Non-Chemical Manufacturing Operations

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that the final rule should clearly
exclude non-chemical manufacturing operations.  The commenter cited
“affiliated operations” as defined in §63.2435(c)(3) of the MON as
an example of non-chemical operations.  According to the commenter,
“affiliated operations” as defined in §63.2435(c)(3) of the MON
should be excluded from the area source rule, and this exclusion should
be expanded to all non-coating situations.

Response:  The commenter did not identify specific types of
“non-coating situations” that are potentially subject to the rule. 
However, the final rule only covers operations described in NAICS 325
and does not cover paints and allied products which are regulated in
part 63, subpart CCCCCCC. 

Comment:  One commenter (0049) stated that the rule should specifically
exempt repackaging operations because repackaging is a non-chemical
processing operation.  Two other commenters (0060 and 0062) stated that
repackaging operations should be exempt because it appears to the
commenters that such operations were not included in EPA’s database
and were not considered in the supporting analyses.

Response:  The commenters have not precisely defined what they mean by
“repackaging”.  Any “repackaging” that is described by NAICS
42269 for wholesale distribution is not subject because it does not meet
the requirement to be covered by NAICS 325.  If repackaging means the
transfer of liquids that contain Table 1 HAP from large containers to
small containers without any blending or other processing steps, there
are no transfer requirements.  If any blending, heating, or other
physical or chemical changes occur, then the operation is chemical
manufacturing and subject to the final rule.  We have no evidence that
such operations were not included in the 1990 database, and they should
have been included in the NEI, except possibly in cases where the NEI
data are based on TRI data and the usage levels did not exceed the TRI
reporting thresholds.

For production of solid materials, a process ends with a dryer or
extruder.  If “repackaging” includes the transfer of solid products
(e.g., powders, pellets, etc.) from large containers to bags or other
small containers, then it is not part of a process and not subject to
the final rule.  The final rule includes a definition for process, but
we do not believe any change is needed to clarify that transfer of
material from one container to another is not a process.

Comment:  Three commenters (0049, 0060, and 0069) requested changes to
§63.11494 to clarify that Table 1 HAP contained in fuels and emissions
from the combustion of fuels, including fuel burned in control devices
and fired equipment such as fired reactors and reboilers, are not to be
considered in determining applicability and are not subject to any other
requirements in the rule.  Commenter 0060 noted that combustion devices
used as control devices are part of the affected source, and fired
equipment is not excluded from the term “process equipment” in
§63.11494(b) of the proposed rule.  Thus, the commenter concluded that
emissions from such combustion devices might be construed as being part
of the applicability test.

Response:   Section 63.11494(c)(5) in the proposed rule specified that
equipment and activities are not subject if they operate within a closed
system and materials are not directly combined with process fluids. 
This condition describes many of the situations described by commenters.
 For example, the use of fuels in combustion-based control devices also
is not considered in applicability determinations because the fuel is
not combined with process fluids.    The exclusion from applicability
determinations also applies to fuel used in reboilers and at least some
fired reactors.  On the other hand, if the fuel in a fired reactor is a
process fluid (i.e., the exhaust gas stream is process fluid), then the
combustion emissions are to be considered in applicability
determinations.

Comment:  One commenter (0062) stated that non-volatile dustless
materials such as Table 1 metal HAP compounds used in pesticide
manufacturing and formulation should be exempt from the NESHAP.

Response:  The commenter has not indicated whether the non-volatile
dustless materials are solids or liquids, how they are used in the
process, the types of Table 1 HAP they contain, or the concentration of
Table 1 HAP.  Thus, we have no basis for providing a blanket exemption
for such materials.  However, if the Table 1 HAP are present at
concentrations below 0.1 percent for carcinogens or less than 1.0
percent for noncarcinogens then the process is not subject to the rule
(assuming no other Table 1 HAP are also present in the process). 
Similarly, a process is not subject to the final rule if the materials
meet the definition of an article that has been added in the final rule
and the article is used under normal conditions such that it does not
emit Table 1 HAP.

Comment:  Five commenters (0049, 0052, 0053, 0056, and 0067) supported
the R&D exemption in §63.11494(c)(3) of the proposed rule.  One
commenter (0067) also requested modifications to explicitly exempt both
(1) combined R&D and commercial production, provided Table 1 HAP are
used only in the R&D operations and (2) commercial product development
and optimization activities that may not qualify as research but are
conducted like research in glassware or related equipment in a
laboratory.  Another commenter (0049) suggested adding a statement to
clarify that the presence of Table 1 HAP in R&D operations is not to be
considered in determining applicability of the rule.

Response:  Section 63.11494(c) of the proposed rule stated “This
subpart does not apply to the operations specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this section,”  Section 63.11494(c)(3) stated
“Research and development facilities, as defined in CAA section
112(c)(7).”  Based on these statements, R&D operations are not subject
to the rule.  Therefore, the presence of Table 1 HAP in R&D operations
does not trigger applicability.  Process equipment that is used for both
R&D and commercial production is not affected during periods of
operation in when the CMPU is functioning as an R&D facility as defined
in the CAA.  We do not believe additional language in the rule is needed
to clarify this point in the final rule.

Comment:  Three commenters (0049, 0053, and 0056) supported the
exemption for QA/QC laboratories in §63.11494(c)(4) of the proposed
rule.  One commenter (0030) asked if the use of acetaldehyde in a
laboratory triggers applicability.  One commenter (0049) suggested
adding a statement to clarify that the presence of Table 1 HAP in QA/QC
laboratories is not to be considered in determining applicability of the
rule.

Response:  Section 63.11494(c)(4) indicates that subpart VVVVVV does not
apply to QA/QC laboratory activities.  We do not believe additional
language is needed to clarify this point.

Comment:  One commenter (0053) recommended exempting the use of HAP
preservatives in pharmaceutical products.  The commenter noted that only
minute quantities of preservative are added and they are generally
non-volatile liquids that are not released to the atmosphere.

Response:  The commenter did not indicate whether the preservatives
contain Table 1 HAP.  If they do not contain Table 1 HAP (and no Table 1
HAP are present in the CMPU for other reasons), then the CMPU is not
subject to the final rule.  However, if the preservative contains Table
1 HAP, then the CMPU is subject to the final rule as we have no basis
for excluding such a process.

Comment:  In order to prevent redundant regulatory burdens, one
commenter (0053) stated that the area source standards should not apply
to equipment subject to 40 CFR part 264 or part 265, subpart AA, BB, or
CC.

Response:  For any process unit subject to both the requirements in
subpart VVVVVV and any other rule, the final rule states that compliance
with the other requirements may be used to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of subpart VVVVVV provided the owner or operator
demonstrates that the requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements, of the other rule are at least as stringent
as the requirements in the final rule.

Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0069) requested the addition of
explicit exemptions to clarify that closed-loop heat exchanger fluids;
heating and cooling systems; and chemicals used to treat water, boiler
feed water, cooling water, or wastewater are not to be considered in
determining applicability of the rule

Response:  The requested language is not needed.  The final rule, like
the proposed rule, states that the subpart does not apply to
“equipment and activities that [] operate in a closed system [and
contain] materials [that] are not combined with process fluids”. 
Thus, the presence of HAP in closed-loop heat exchanger fluids, heating
and cooling systems, boiler feed water, and cooling water is not
considered when determining applicability of the rule.  Chemicals in
water used in the process (i.e., a feedstock) would need to be
considered.  Applicability under the final rule is based on the presence
of Table 1 HAP in feedstocks or generated/produced in the CMPU. 
Wastewater systems are not part of the CMPU; therefore, chemicals added
during wastewater treatment have no bearing on applicability
determinations.

Comment:  Three commenters (0053, 0060, and 0069) requested the addition
of explicit exemptions for the following non-chemical manufacturing
materials and operations that may involve Table 1 HAP:  (1) maintenance
materials, activities, and wastes (e.g., paint, lubricants, degreasers,
cleaning products, welding slag, machine shop wastes, discarded pipe);
(2) machine tooling activities (e.g., to make templates for drug capsule
forms from stainless steel), and (3) inks used to print information on
shipping cartons.

Response:  The intent of the rule is to cover the manufacture of
chemicals, not to cover the end use of chemicals (unless otherwise used
in the manufacture of other chemicals).  Therefore, while we cannot
provide formal determinations of the applicability of this final rule to
particular facilities, the use of inks and maintenance materials and the
generation of wastes resulting from maintenance activities as described
by the commenters are not intended to be covered by the rule. 
Similarly, machine tooling operations may use cutting oils or generate
metal HAP emissions from grinding and other metal-working activities,
but these are not chemical manufacturing operations.  We do not believe
additional language is needed in subpart VVVVVV to clarify these points.

3.5.4	Processes That Use Catalysts

Comment:  Several commenters (0037, 0047, 0053, and 0067) requested that
facilities not be required to consider the presence of Table 1 HAP
metals in catalysts when determining applicability of the rule because
the catalysts remain unchanged in the process equipment for significant
periods of time, and their use results in little, if any, emissions. 
Two commenters (0056 and follow-up communication with 0037) noted that
metal HAP are emitted only when managing the catalyst (e.g., changing
out the catalyst bed), which occurs annually or less frequently. 
Therefore, commenter 0056 requested an exemption if the facility manages
less than 10,000 lb/yr of catalyst and does not trigger applicability
for any other reason.  Without an exemption, two commenters (0047 and
0056) noted that several facilities would be subject to the rule solely
because they use catalyst that contains Table 1 metal HAP.  One
commenter (0067) observed that, for catalysts, the potential for
emissions is only from their production and recycling, not their use in
fixed beds.

Response:  The response in section 3.5.2 to the comment regarding
nutrients used in biological processes explains the concept of
“articles” that has been added to the final rule.  A CMPU that uses
a catalyst that meets this definition is not subject to the final rule
(assuming that no other Table 1 HAP are present in the process).  If a
catalyst does not meet the definition of an article, then the process is
subject.  Based on the limited available information, we do not expect
that emissions from catalysts, even from changing out the bed, will
exceed 400 lb/yr.  Thus, any process that is subject will likely be
subject only to management practices.

As noted by one commenter, catalyst production and regeneration
processes are subject to the final rule because the catalyst itself is
the product, not an article.

3.6	Other Applicability Comments

Comment:  One commenter (0062) was not certain of the regulatory status
under the Clean Air Act of a facility that is a major source and
dedicated to pesticide formulating operations.  The commenter noted that
it is explicitly exempted from the Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM), and it appears it would
be exempt from the area source rule as well.

Response:  A pesticide formulation facility that is a major source of
HAP emissions is subject to the MON.

Comment:  One commenter (0058) questioned if a facility uses one HAP on
the Table 1 HAP list, do the regulations apply to all federally-listed
HAP.  Commenter 0058 further questioned whether both processes at a
facility with two processes are subject if the Table 1 HAP acetaldehyde
is used in one process but only toluene is used in the other process.

Response:  As discussed in the preamble, only those CMPUs that use,
produce, or generate a Table 1 HAP are part of the affected source and
subject to the final rule.  If the Table 1 HAP in a process unit is an
organic compound (or hydrazine), then all other 112(b) organic HAP in
that CMPU (and associated wastewater systems and heat exchange systems)
are also subject to the standards.  Similarly, if the Table 1 HAP in a
process unit is a HAP metal compound, then all other 112(b) metal HAP
are subject to standards.

Comment:  One commenter (0049) suggested several editorial changes to
clarify §63.11494(c).

Response:  We appreciate the suggestions, and we have adopted those that
we believe clarify the requirements.  

3.7	Compliance Dates

Comment:  Several commenters (0052, 0064, 0060, and 0067) supported the
allowance of 3 years for existing sources to come into compliance.  

Response:  We acknowledge the comment and note that this proposed
requirement has been retained in the final rule.

 

Chapter 4

Requirements:  General

4.1	HAP and Emission Points to Which Standards Apply

Comment:  Several commenters (0040[ACC], 0040[SOCMA], 0044, 0049, 0052,
0056, 0060, 0064) stated that standards should apply only to Table 1 HAP
emissions or emission streams that contain Table 1 HAP because
regulating other HAP is inconsistent with the intent of Congress, is not
needed to meet the statutory requirements of section 112(k), or imposes
compliance costs much greater than in EPA’s impacts analyses.  For
example, commenters 0052 and 0060 indicated that there would be
significant additional cost for piping or multiple controls for process
vents, even if applicability is on a process unit basis; commenter 0049
stated that EPA’s impacts analysis did not consider the cost to apply
controls to storage tanks that do not contain Table 1 HAP; and commenter
0060 noted that significant costs to characterize numerous wastewater
streams that contain no Table 1 HAP have not been considered in the
impacts analysis.  Commenters 0040 [SOCMA], 0049, and 0064 noted that
only Table 1 HAP should be subject to controls because controls for the
Table 1 HAP that triggered applicability may not be effective for other
HAP emissions, even when all of the HAP are organic compounds. 
Commenter 0049 stated that a single control device can be used to
control both Table 1 and non-Table 1 HAP only when both types of
compounds are present in the same stream.  Despite the concerns noted
above, commenter 0060 also stated that if the applicability of the rule
is limited to process units that emit Table 1 HAP, then control of the
non-Table 1 HAP in those process units could also be required.  Another
commenter (0053) suggested regulating only very large sources of
non-Table 1 HAP emissions that exceed a de minimis level.

Response:  As discussed in chapter 3, applicability is based on process
units in the final rule.  For a process unit subject only to management
practice requirements, the management practices are equally effective at
controlling emissions of HAP other than the chemical manufacturing Table
1 HAP.  Where add-on control devices are required, the controls will
reduce not only emissions of the chemical manufacturing Table 1 HAP but
also emissions of other HAP.  For example, a control device for metal
HAP process vents will reduce both particulate matter that contains
chemical manufacturing Table 1 metal HAP and particulate matter that
contains other CAA section 112(b) metal HAP.  Similarly, a condenser
operated to control methylene chloride, the most common chemical
manufacturing Table 1 organic HAP, will also control other CAA section
112(b) organic HAP.  The impacts analysis for batch process vents
includes costs for 300 feet of ductwork to route emissions from several
batch process vents in a process to a common condenser.  Furthermore,
the final standards for batch process vents require an overall organic
HAP reduction from existing sources of 85 percent from the collection of
all batch process vents within a process, which gives an owner or
operator the flexibility to over-control certain vents and not control
vents that are small or possibly have HAP that are not as easily
controlled.  All continuous process vents with a TRE less than 1 must be
controlled regardless of the organic HAP present because such vents are
typically significant sources of emissions, and the cost of control is
reasonable.  Wastewater controls (e.g., decanting) are required if the
wastewater stream contains more than 10,000 ppmw of partially soluble
HAP and the stream consists of more than one phase.  This control
applies equally well regardless of whether or not the partially soluble
HAP is Table 1 HAP, and the costs are reasonable in either case.  The
final rule does not require control of storage tanks that store liquid
that does not contain any chemical manufacturing organic Table 1 HAP
because this change also makes the rule requirements consistent with the
proposed impacts analysis.  For all of the reasons stated, we do not
believe it is infeasible or unreasonable to require control of all HAP
of the same type (i.e., organic or metal) that triggered applicability
for the process unit. 

Comment:  Several commenters (0053, 0060, 0063) stated that organic HAP
should be regulated only when organic Table 1 HAP triggers
applicability, and metal HAP should be regulated only when metal Table 1
HAP triggers applicability because the same technology cannot be used to
control both types of HAP. 

Response:  We have made the change suggested by the commenters because
GACT for organic HAP controls is different than GACT for metal HAP
controls.

4.2	De minimis Thresholds for Standards

Comment:  Many commenters (0033, 0043, 0049, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0060,
0063, 0066, 0067, and 0069) stated that the rule should define
insignificant emissions levels or de minimis thresholds for each type of
emission point in an affected process below which no regulatory
requirements would apply.  Typically, the commenters requested
thresholds that corresponded with thresholds that have been specified in
MACT rules.  For example, commenters requested a threshold of 50 ppmv
HAP below which a vent from process equipment would not be a batch
process vent.  Other requested thresholds including a 5 weight percent
HAP content in process fluid for equipment leaks, throughput and vapor
pressure thresholds for transfer operations, either 200 lb/yr of HAP or
an Table 1 HAP concentration in wastewater streams, and a capacity of
10,000 gal for storage tanks.  The commenters stated that thresholds are
needed to make the rule more cost effective and that control of streams
with low flow, low HAP concentrations, or low annual mass emissions is
not GACT because control is either technically infeasible or never cost
effective.  Some commenters stated that thresholds are needed so that
GACT for area sources is not more stringent than MACT for major sources.
 Some commenters stated that EPA’s impacts analysis did not consider
costs for addressing all of the emission points that fall below the
suggested thresholds.  Many of the commenters also suggested
incorporating thresholds in definitions for terms such as “batch
process vent,” “continuous process vent,” “storage tank,”
“wastewater,” “in organic HAP service,” and “transfer
operations.”

Commenter 0053 stated that, with the addition of a threshold level,
facilities that think that determining which equipment is not in HAP
service is overly burdensome could volunteer to inspect all equipment
containing HAP regardless of concentration.

Response:  Although the final rule includes definitions for all of the
terms cited by the commenters, most do not include thresholds.  The
definition of “storage tank” does not include a threshold, but add
on control requirements apply only to tanks that meet size and vapor
pressure thresholds; all storage tanks in an affected process unit are
subject to management practice requirements.  The definitions of “in
organic HAP service” and “transfer operations” do not have
thresholds, and we require management practices for equipment leaks and
transfer operations.

  Two definitions do include a threshold.  “Batch process vent”
includes a 50 ppmv threshold because this is the practical limit of
control using many types of control devices.  “Continuous process
vent” includes a similar mass-based concentration threshold.  Vents
with HAP levels below these thresholds are not subject to any
requirements related to emission limits that can be met only by using
add-on control devices.  However, in all cases, a CMPU is subject to
management practice requirements if it emits Table 1 HAP.

Comment:  Assuming the final rule includes thresholds for standards, one
commenter (0063) stated that facilities with no control obligations
should be subject to only minimal recordkeeping and reporting
requirements such as maintaining applicability documentation and
reporting any facility changes that are defined in the rule.  The
commenter also stated that such a source should not be required to
develop an SSM plan.

Response:  If a facility is subject only to management practice
requirements, the required recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the final rule are minimal.  As suggested by the commenter, records of
applicability determinations (i.e., records showing batch process vents,
continuous process vents, metal process vents, and wastewater are below
thresholds for control) must be kept for each affected process unit. 
Records of all management practice inspections and repairs (including
heat exchange system inspections and repairs) also must be maintained. 
Reporting requirements for such a facility consist only of the initial
notification, notification of compliance status, and periodic compliance
reports.  Compliance reports are required only for semiannual periods in
which any of the following events are experienced: deviations, delay of
leak repairs, process changes that affect a compliance determination,
changes to the list of provisions in overlapping rules with which you
comply, or certain conditions related to compliance with the alternative
standard for batch or continuous process vents.  All SSM issues are
addressed in the preamble to the final rule.

4.3	Energetics

Comment:  One commenter (0039) noted that the requirements for batch and
continuous process vents in Table 2 to the proposed rule incorporated by
reference the provisions in 40 CFR 63.2450(q) of the MON that allows for
alternatives if compliance with the specified emission limits would
create a safety hazard, but the commenter is not sure that the intent is
clear and that the provision is sufficiently broad as it is in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF.  Commenter 0039 suggested two alternatives for
clarifying these requirements.  The commenter’s recommended approach
is to incorporate the relevant language from §63.2450(q) of subpart
FFFF directly in subpart VVVVVV.  Alternatively, the commenter suggested
that we could explain in the preamble to the final rule that our intent
is to incorporate the alternative requirements for energetics
manufacturing to the same extent as in subpart FFFF and modify Table 2
to subpart VVVVVV to clarify that the safety related provisions for
energetics are not limited solely to requirements for batch and
continuous organic HAP process vents.  Another commenter (0056) also
requested that a provision like that in §63.2450(q) be added to
§63.11495(i), under which a facility would document the organic
peroxide or energetic compliance plans in the NOCS.

Response:  As the commenters realize, our intent is that the alternative
provisions in the MON for energetics processes are also available to
area sources.  The relevant language in §63.2450(q) is brief and it
includes references that are not applicable for area sources.  In an
effort to clarify these provisions we have included the relevant
language directly in the final rule, however, the final rule requires
the owner or operator to submit an application to the Administrator for
special considerations regarding manufacturing of energetics.

4.4	Management Practices

Comment:  One commenter (0056) stated that there should be no management
practice requirements for metal HAP emissions because EPA assumed that
metal HAP are emitted only from process vents, which are subject to
other standards.

Response:  We disagree with this comment because we meant only that
metal HAP are not emitted from other emission points like storage tanks,
wastewater treatment units, or transfer operations.  However, it is
still possible to emit metal HAP fugitives from open-top vessels or
through unclosed manways, etc., and it is these emissions that the
management practices for metal HAP are intended to address. 

Comment:  To ensure compliance with the requirement that openings and
access points must be closed during operation, two commenters (0036 and
0051) recommended that the final rule require a formal leak detection
and repair (LDAR) program using a VOC instrument detector for quarterly
leak inspections on all process vents.  Commenter 0051 cited examples of
bypass stacks with flow, poorly repaired CVS, broken seals on PRV, and
improperly sealed closures on access man-ways as reasons why instrument
monitoring is needed.  Commenter 0051 also stated that conducting
inspections using only sight, sound, and smell will likely result in
late detection and excess emissions

Response:  One commenter identified several situations that illustrate
why standards are needed.  We considered requiring an instrument-based
LDAR program for equipment leaks (i.e., from pumps, valve, connectors,
etc.), but we determined that the cost effectiveness of such a program
is unacceptable.  Although we do not have data on the emission reduction
that can be achieved by requiring the same type of LDAR for covers,
closure mechanisms, and other seams and seals in process equipment, we
expect that the cost effectiveness would be comparable to the results
for equipment leaks.  Therefore, we decided the management practice
requirements should consist only of AVO inspections, but an
instrument-based LDAR program is authorized if a source chooses to
implement one.

4.5	Initial Compliance Demonstrations

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that sources should be allowed to
demonstrate compliance with percent reduction or outlet concentration
limits based on total VOC or TOC as an alternative to total organic HAP.

Response:  We agree in part with the commenter’s suggestion.  Previous
rules allow compliance to be demonstrated based on either the organic
HAP or TOC because a control device generally achieves comparable
percent reductions for both organic HAP and TOC.  Furthermore, because
organic HAP is a subset of TOC, an outlet concentration based on TOC is
more stringent than an outlet concentration based on HAP.  Compliance
with an outlet concentration limit based on VOC would not be appropriate
because methylene chloride, a HAP, is not a VOC.  Therefore, the final
rule specifies that compliance may be demonstrated based on either
organic HAP or TOC.

Comment:  According to one commenter (0060), testing batch process vent
control devices under maximum representative conditions rather than
worst-case conditions would provide adequate compliance assurance and
significantly lower costs and burden.

Response:  Conducting initial compliance demonstrations under worst-case
conditions rather than maximum representative conditions provides a
higher level of assurance that the required control level is being met
for these relatively large emission sources.  As discussed above, the
final rule allows initial compliance demonstrations based on either
performance tests or design evaluations.  We do not believe the burden
to conduct a design evaluation based on worst-case conditions differs
significantly from the burden to conduct a design evaluation under
maximum representative conditions.  Furthermore, for a typical facility
with only one or two process units subject to control (and no
centralized control devices), worst-case conditions are not likely to
differ significantly from actual conditions, and we are not persuaded
that the burden to determine the worst-case conditions and to conduct a
test under those conditions would differ significantly than the burden
to test under maximum representative conditions.  Therefore, the final
rule does not allow testing (or design evaluations) under maximum
representative conditions. 

Comment:  Two commenters (0049 and 0060) suggested that a facility with
multiple metal HAP emission points that are similar in nature (same type
of operation, emissions stream, and control) should be allowed to use a
test or design evaluation for one unit to demonstrate initial compliance
for all of the similar units.

Response:  If conditions for two or more units are the same, then a
single design evaluation can be used to demonstrate compliance for all
such units. 

Comment:  According to one commenter (0069), §63.11496(b) of the
proposed rule would require sampling at both the inlet and outlet of a
control device for a continuous process vent.  However, if a source is
complying with a concentration or mass discharge limit the commenter
stated that outlet sampling should be sufficient to demonstrate
compliance.

Response:  We agree with the commenter’s conclusion that outlet
sampling should be allowed to demonstrate compliance with an outlet
concentration emission limit for continuous process vents.  However,
contrary to the commenter’s assertion, §63.11496(b) of the proposed
rule did not require both inlet and outlet sampling to demonstrate
compliance with an outlet concentration limit.  Section 63.11496(b)
referenced the emission limit in Table 2, which in turn referenced the
compliance requirements in subpart SS.  Section 63.997(e)(2)(i) of
subpart SS specifies how to locate inlet and outlet sampling sites for
demonstrating compliance with a percent reduction emission limit, and it
specifies how to locate outlet sampling sites for compliance with an
outlet concentration emission limit.  The final rule references these
same requirements.

Comment:  One commenter (0069) stated that the rule should allow
facilities the flexibility to use the most cost effective approved test
method without having to file time-consuming requests for approval of
alternative methods.

Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, references section
63.997 of subpart SS for applicable test methods.  Section 63.997 states
that Method 18 or any other method validated according to the procedures
in Method 301 may be used.  Any method that meets these conditions may
be used without requesting approval.  In addition, the final rule allows
engineering assessments in lieu of performance tests.

4.6	Monitoring Requirements

Comment:  One commenter (0060) requested that daily pH checks be allowed
in place of expensive continuous pH analyzers for all halogen scrubbers,
not just those that handle emissions from batch process vents.  Another
commenter (0053) recommended replacing the CPMS requirement for all
control device operating parameters with a requirement to monitor the
parameters once per batch or once per shift, whichever time period is
shorter.  The commenter stated that CPMS requirements impose a number of
operational, recordkeeping, and reporting burdens such as the need for
on-going information technology support for the large, complex, and
costly system, and semi-annual reporting of CPMS changes, downtime, and
periods when an operating parameter limit was exceeded.  

Response:  As in MACT rules like the MON, the chemical manufacturing
area source final rule, like the proposed rule, allows measurement and
recording of applicable operating parameters once per day for control
devices that have inlet HAP loads less than 1 ton/yr.  This provision is
intended to minimize the monitoring and associated recordkeeping and
reporting burden for smaller sources.  As noted by one of the
commenters, the proposed rule also would allow daily pH checks rather
than continuous pH monitoring for halogen scrubbers that handle
emissions from batch process vents.  After consideration of the comment,
we decided to include the option of daily pH checks for all halogen
scrubbers in the final rule.  This change potentially reduces the
monitoring burden without reducing assurance that the control device
achieves the required 95 percent reduction in hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP emissions because scrubber water flow must still be measured
continuously.  We have not revised the continuous monitoring
requirements for other control device operating parameters because we do
not have evidence that less frequent monitoring will assure continuous
compliance.   

Comment:  One commenter (0069) requested clarification of whether
facilities must continuously monitor liquid and airflow influent to
halogen scrubbers that are used with combustion control devices.  If
this monitoring is required, the commenter stated that the costs for
operation and maintenance should be incorporated into the impacts
analysis.

Response:  The liquid influent flow rate to a halogen scrubber must be
continuously monitored as specified in §63.994(c)(1)(ii).  The gas
stream flow must be determined once by one of the methods specified in
§63.994(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D).  This one-time determination must
reflect worst-case conditions for batch process vents and the maximum
representative conditions for continuous process vents.  We have not
estimated costs to monitor scrubber operating parameters because we
expect that few, if any, area sources will need to use combustion
control devices to meet the 85 percent and 90 percent emission limits
for halogenated existing and new batch process vents, respectively, and
the 95 percent emissions limit for continuous process vents.

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that the requirements in §63.983
of subpart SS and in §60.112b(1)(3)(i) of subpart Kb to monitor
closed-vent systems (CVS) using Method 21 should be replaced with AVO
inspections consistent with the requirements for equipment leaks because
the burden of Method 21 monitoring is not justified at area sources and
is not GACT.

Response:  A closed-vent system is used to convey process vent or
storage tank emissions to a control device.  The CVS must be sound and
free of leaks in order to achieve the specified emission limit.  For a
CVS, visual observation is less effective than Method 21 monitoring
because the CVS conveys a gas stream (a vapor leak will not be readily
detected visually except perhaps in cold weather when a plume of
condensed vapor might form).  Observations based on sound and smell are
potentially more effective than visual observations, but the AVO
requirements for equipment leaks do not require observation in close
proximity to the potential leak source; thus, only very large leaks may
be detected by these methods.  The process vent streams that are subject
to emission limits are also potentially the largest emission streams at
an area source.  Therefore, we have decided not to override the Method
21 monitoring requirements for closed-vent systems.

Comment:  One commenter (0053) stated that the compliance determinations
for batch process vents should provide the flexibility to use either
batch or 24-hour averaging, whichever is most appropriate for the
affected chemical manufacturing process.

Response:  Table 2 in the proposed rule specified that the compliance
provisions in §63.2460(c) of subpart FFFF apply to the control of
emissions from batch process vents.  Section 63.2460(c)(4) specifies
that operating parameters may be averaged over a day (24-hr period) or
an operating block (a period of time from the beginning to end of batch
operations within a process).  This provision is retained in the final
rule; however, to improve clarity, the reference to section 63.2460(c)
has been removed from Table 2 and placed in section 63.11496(g).

Comment:  One commenter (0067) stated that monitoring costs should be
included with control device capital and operating costs when evaluating
cost effectiveness of various emission control techniques and practices.
 According to the commenter, it would defy common sense to think that
Congress was concerned only with the costs of control and not monitoring
as well when it spoke of the need to consider costs when setting GACT
standards.

Response:  Costs to purchase and operate monitoring devices were
estimated and included in the burden estimate in the ICR.  Although
these costs were not directly part of the analysis to determine the cost
effectiveness of options under consideration as GACT, the burden is
considered when developing compliance demonstration procedures and the
overall cost of the rule.  As discussed in the responses above we have
made a number of changes to reduce the initial and ongoing compliance
burden relative to requirements in MACT rules (recordkeeping and
reporting requirements also have been streamlined to minimize burden).

4.7	Emission Averaging and Pollution Prevention

Comment:  Three commenters (0060, 0064, and 0069) requested that the
final rule include an emission averaging alternative because it may help
some sources reduce the compliance burden and optimize their compliance
investments.  Commenter 0060 offered to partner with EPA to streamline
the emission averaging process and to reduce the burdens that discourage
use of emission averaging under other rules.

Response:  We think it is unlikely that area sources would elect to
implement emission averaging provisions because they are very
complicated and require a significant amount of recordkeeping to
document compliance.  In addition, because the final rule applies only
to process units that use, generate, or produce Table 1 HAP, the
opportunities for emission averaging are greatly reduced relative to the
proposed rule.  Furthermore, significant changes to existing programs
would be needed to remove references to Group 1 and Group 2 emission
points and to restructure the procedures to reflect the emission
reduction and management practice requirements in the area source rule. 

Comment:  One commenter (0064) stated that EPA should incorporate
pollution prevention/product stewardship incentives.  Another commenter
(0067) believed facilities should get credit for their pollution
prevention activities, and EPA should model the credit on the approach
taken in other EPA rules (e.g., MON and PHARMA) that encouraged
pollution prevention.

Response:  Pollution prevention alternatives in MACT rules, like
emissions averaging alternatives, are complicated and require a
significant amount of documentation to demonstrate compliance.  Given
the number of comments that suggested the proposed rule needed to be
simplified to be understandable and easily implemented by area sources
(see chapter 13), we do not believe that such an alternative would be of
interest to many area sources, and it would not be a productive use of
EPA resources to develop one.  Furthermore, we do not have the detailed
emission point-specific emissions information needed to establish a HAP
consumption reduction requirement that will achieve emission reductions
at least equivalent to GACT.  Promulgation of the rule is also subject
to a court-ordered deadline that does not provide time to develop
options that will not have broad appeal.

Although the final rule does not have an explicit pollution prevention
alternative, we believe it does provide incentives to implement
pollution prevention.  For example, process changes that reduce the
amount of HAP solvent used will also reduce the overall emissions. 
Reducing emissions may mean some facilities would be required to comply
only with management practice requirements in the final rule rather than
both management practices and add on control requirements.

Comment:  One commenter (0064) requested further pollution
prevention/product stewardship incentives specifically for chromium,
suggesting that if facilities reformulate products to trivalent chromium
then the facility can opt out of the rule, because of the significant
difference between hexavalent chrome and trivalent chrome.

Response:  All chromium compounds, collectively, are one of the 30 HAP
that EPA identified under section 112(k)(3)(B) and must be regulated at
chemical manufacturing area sources to achieve the section 112(c)(3)
requirement to regulate area sources representing 90 percent of
emissions of Table 1 HAP.  For this reason, a source that reformules to
use/produce materials that contain trivalent chromium instead of
hexavalent chromium remains subject to this rule.

Chapter 5

Requirements for Batch and Continuous Process Vents

5.1	Batch Process Vents

5.1.1	Emissions Calculations

Comment:  Commenter 0060 requested a HAP usage calculation to
demonstrate a process is below the 19,000 lb/yr batch process vent
trigger rather than calculating emissions, similar to the MON at
§63.2460(b)(7).  

Response:  The proposed rule included this option at §63.11496(a)(4). 
The final standards also include this calculation, although the
threshold for batch process vent control in the final standards is
10,000 lb/yr per CMPU.

Comment:  Commenter 0056 stated that EPA should exempt affected sources
from the emission calculation requirement for any products not using,
producing, or emitting HAP.

Response:  We do not believe that this language is necessary.  The final
rule specifies that the calculation is required for CMPUs in the
affected source.  All affected CMPUs use, produce, or generate Table 1
HAP.

5.1.2	Batch Process Vent Standards

Comment:  Commenter 0053 requested an alternative standard of 20 ppmv
for combustion device control and 50 ppmv for other types of control,
such as condensers or carbon absorbers.

Response:  We assume the commenter is referring to the so-called
“alternative standard” in the MON and the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP because this is the only compliance option in those rules that
specifies an outlet concentration limit of 50 ppmv.  Another compliance
option in both rules is to meet an outlet concentration limit of 20 ppmv
for any control device by conducting an initial performance test or
design evaluation and then demonstrating ongoing compliance by
monitoring one or more operating parameters.  The “alternative
standard” requires an owner or operator to use CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with a 20 ppmv outlet concentration limit for combustion
devices or a 50 ppmv outlet concentration limit for non-combustion
devices.

Table 2 of the proposed rule referenced §63.2505 of the MON, which in
turn referenced the compliance procedures for the “alternative
standard” in the Pharmaceutical MACT.  The final rule retains this
provision.  Because of the complexity of the cross-references, we
considered writing the applicable language from §63.2505 of the MON or
§63.1258(b)(5) of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP directly in
subpart VVVVVV.  However, we decided against it because we think few
facilities will elect to comply with this option due to the cost of
CEMS.  Furthermore, the provisions are extensive, and we believe
including them would make the rule harder to follow for facilities that
do not plan to comply with the alternative standard.

Comment:  Commenter 0058 questioned whether the 90 percent emission
reduction applies to each batch process vent individually or if it is
calculated based on all process vents combined.   The commenter also
asked if a facility is already controlling batch process vents at least
90 percent, will they be required to reduce those emissions by another
90 percent using additional controls.

Response:  Table 2 in the proposed rule specified that 90 percent
reduction applies to the “sum of all batch process vents.”  The same
language is used in the final rule, except that it applies to the sum of
batch process vents within an affected CMPU, not all processes
facility-wide, and as discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the
required reduction is 85 percent for existing sources.  The 85 percent
control level is determined from uncontrolled levels; if the controls
currently achieve greater than 85 percent control overall from all batch
process vents in a process, the source does not have to achieve an
additional reduction over that level. 

Comment:  Commenter 0067 asked that EPA clarify the averaging periods
for determining compliance with the proposed percent reduction
requirements because batch processes do not operate continuously.  The
commenter also noted conflicts between the cross-referenced requirements
(e.g., provisions in subpart SS), which express compliance on a
process-unit basis, and proposed subpart VVVVVV itself, which expressed
compliance on a facility-wide basis.

Response:  The final standards have been modified so that compliance is
based on a CMPU basis.  The final rule also contains the same exceptions
to subpart SS for batch processes in subpart FFFF involving averaging
periods.

5.2	Continuous Process Vents

5.2.1	TRE Value

Comment:  Commenter 0056 stated that EPA should revisit the continuous
process vent determination and set different TRE threshold appropriate
for GACT.  The commenter cited the HON MACT TRE of 1.0 is the same as
the TRE in this rulemaking.  If GACT is considered a lesser control
stringency than MACT, the TRE of 1.0 for chemical manufacturing area
sources seems to represent MACT rather than GACT.  

Commenter 0068 also stated that the TRE should be recalculated.  A TRE
of 1 is based on MACT cost effectiveness of $3,000 per ton of organic
HAP and this rulemaking is supposed to be based on GACT; therefore, EPA
should use a lower cost effectiveness estimate for GACT than MACT.  The
commenter recommended $2,000 per ton of organic HAP, which was used in
the NOx SIP call; recent rules in 40 CFR Parts 51, 72, 75, and 96; and
the Rule to Reduce Interstate
Transpo瑲漠⁦楆敮倠牡楴畣慬整䴠瑡整⁲湡⁤穏湯⁥䤨
瑮牥瑳瑡⁥楁⁲畑污瑩⁹畒敬⸩†桔⁥潣浭湥整⁲獥楴
慭整⁤桴瑡琠敨渠睥挠污畣慬整⁤剔⁅潦⁲䅇呃眠畯摬
洠獯⁴楬敫祬戠⁥扡畯⁴⸰⸸

Commenter 0060 supported the use of a TRE value of ≤1.0 as not
unreasonable for continuous process vents and would reflect typical
industry practice if the continuous process vent definition is resolved
as suggested by the commenter.

Response:  The continuous process vent definition in the final rule is
consistent with the definition in the HON.  The TRE threshold in the
final rule of 1.0 is also consistent with the HON analysis.  Although,
we do not believe that the acceptable cost effectiveness for area
sources should necessarily be lower than for major sources, this
threshold is lower than the MON TRE threshold of 1.9.   

Comment:  Commenter 0069 supported the use of the TRE because it is
effective as a way of determining whether expensive control equipment is
required.  The commenter requested that EPA develop a simplified
calculation approach or include look-up tables in the rulemaking for
area sources that may not have sufficient technical expertise to perform
the complicated calculations.

Response:  We agree that measuring or estimating the flow rates, heating
values, and emission rates to use in the calculation is not a trivial
exercise.  However, these data are fundamental to the TRE approach, and
we do not believe it would be feasible to develop a simplified
alternative.  Although the calculation has not been changed in the final
rule, we have minimized the calculation burden by specifying conditions
under which the calculation is not required because the TRE will be a
high number.  Furthermore, under the final rule, the only CPV for which
TRE must be determined are those in CMPUs that use, produce, or generate
organic Table 1 HAP, not all CMPUs within a facility.

Comment:  One commenter (0054) expressed concern that the seemingly
complex procedures for determination of the TRE are not in the rule. 
For a rule targeting smaller businesses, the commenter stated such
procedures should be in the rule itself rather than left to an
explanation in the preamble and cross-reference language in the rule.

Response:  The procedures for determining the TRE are specified in
§63.115 of the HON.  These procedures were referenced from
§63.11496(b)(1) in the proposed rule.  The language in §63.115 is
lengthy, and we specify only one exception to this language (i.e.,
§63.115(d)(1)(i) and (ii) do not apply).  Therefore, we do not believe
clarity is greatly enhanced by copying the language into this rule, and
we decided to retain the cross-reference to §63.115 from
§63.11496(b)(1) of the final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0049) estimated the burden of establishing the
variables needed to calculate the TRE index to be at least four hours
per process vent.

Response:  In the final supporting statement the burden of estimating
TRE index values is estimated to be 3 hours per facility, and typical
facilities with continuous processes are assumed to have one vent for
which the index value must be determined.  The final rule allows TRE
index values for all continuous vents to be estimated; unlike the
proposed rule, measurement of the values for the variables is not
required for any continuous process vent.  Therefore, we assumed the
average burden would be slightly less than the amount estimated by the
commenter.

5.2.2	Continuous Process Vent Standards

Comment:  Commenter 0060 asked that EPA clarify that sources may use
recovery to maintain a continuous process vent at a TRE >1.0.  The
commenter considered this issue to be particularly critical if the
continuous process vent definition is not clarified so that the emission
source does not meet the definition until after passing through the last
recovery device.  According to the commenter, recovery is the best
environmental approach, is most cost effective, is consistent with GACT,
and is allowed under other process vent rules.

	Response:  In the final rule, the definition of CPV is consistent with
the process vent definition in the HON.  Thus, determination of a CPV is
after the last recovery device.  The proposed rule allowed compliance
with the recovery device provisions in §63.982(e), and this provision
has been retained in the final rule.  This means sources can use
recovery to maintain the TRE >1.0.

Comment:  Commenter 0068 requested that continuous process vent control
requirements include the 20 ppmv alternative as in NSPS NNN, RRR, and
III.  The commenter recommended the same rationale applies because it is
impractical for many low concentration streams to meet the specified
concentration reductions.

Response:  Although the 20 ppmv outlet concentration limit was in the
proposed rule, Table 2 of the proposed rule only provided the 95 percent
reduction requirement.  The final standards have been corrected to
include this alternative.  

5.3	Other Requirements Related to Organic HAP Process Vents

5.3.1	Streams Routed to Fuel Gas Systems, Furnaces, or for Process Use

Comment:  Commenter 0060 asked that EPA allow sources to route vent
streams to process use or for use as fuel as organic HAP compliance
options in §63.11496 and Table 2.  The commenter also requested that no
performance test or monitoring requirements apply in such cases.

Commenters 0049, 0053, and 0060 asked that EPA exclude streams routed to
fuel gas systems from the definitions of continuous and batch process
vents.

Commenter 0067 asked that EPA clarify that exhaust gases from industrial
furnaces used as control devices are not included in the definition of
continuous process vent.  The commenter gave an example of boiler or
industrial furnace (BIF) units that are comprehensively regulated under
40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart H, and operate under final permits issued
under 40 C.F.R Part 270.  The commenter asked that no further testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting be required when a BIF unit is
used to meet the proposed area source standards.

Commenters 0049 and 0060 asked that a definition for “fuel gas
system” (from Subpart SS or the HON) be added to the rule.

	Response:  In MACT rules for various sectors of the chemical
manufacturing industry, EPA has considered gas streams that are routed
to a process or fuel gas system not to be process vents.  We have
decided that departure from this approach is unwarranted for area
sources.  Therefore, definitions for “continuous process vent” and
“batch process vent” in the final rule specify that a stream routed
to a fuel gas system is not a process vent.  The final definitions also
specify that gas streams transferred to other processes (on-site or
off-site) for reaction or other use in another process (i.e., for
chemical value as a product, isolated intermediate, byproduct, or
co-product, or for heat value) are not batch process vents or continuous
process vents.  The final rule references the definition of “fuel gas
system” in subpart SS.

5.3.2	Requirements for Halogenated Vent Streams

Comment:  Commenter 0053 supported hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
regulation from combustion devices.  Another commenter (0060) asked for
several clarifications to the requirements for halogenated vent streams.
 First, this commenter asked that the rule clarify how area sources
determine whether a stream is halogenated and recommended referencing
§63.115(d)(2)(v) of the HON for the methodology.  Second, this
commenter requested that definitions be added from §63.2550(i) of the
MON for the following terms: “halogenated vent stream,” “hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP,” and “halogen atoms.”  Third, the
commenter asked that the requirement in §63.11496(d)(1) to reduce
emissions to ≤0.45 kg/hr be based on halogen atom mass rather than
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to be consistent with the method of
determining whether the stream is halogenated and with the language used
in §63.11496(d)(2).  Finally, commenter 0060 suggested editorial
changes for §63.11496(d) to clarify that halogen control is required
only if a combustion device is used to comply with the emission limits
for organic HAP.

Response:  The proposed rule relied on the definition of “halogenated
vent stream” in the MON, which references §63.115(d)(2)(v) for
procedures to determine if a stream is halogenated.  To improve clarity,
§63.11502 of the final rule specifies that the definition in §63.2550
of the MON applies.  Other terms identified by the commenter are also
defined through specific cross-references to other rules in this final
rule.  We have also incorporated the commenter’s editorial suggestion
to clarify §63.11496(d).  However, we decided not to change the basis
for the outlet mass emission rate from total hydrogen halide and halogen
mass to just the halogen atom mass.  The difference is small (less than
3 percent if all of the halogen atoms are present only as HCl, not
chlorine), but all previous rules specify the hydrogen halide and
halogen rate, and this is consistent with the calculation in Method 26.

5.3.3	Combined Streams

Comment:  Commenter 0060 recommended revisions to clarify the combined
process vent stream requirement in §63.11496(c).  The commenter stated
that the proposed language presumes the batch process vent and
continuous process vent streams being combined are all uncontrolled.  To
clarify this point, the commenter recommended that the provision be
revised to state that the requirements apply if “uncontrolled OHAP
emissions from batch process vents and uncontrolled continuous process
vents” are combined.  The commenter also stated that if a continuous
process vent is controlled and the outlet of the control is mixed with
uncontrolled batch process vents, the batch process vents would require
control.

Response:  We have added provisions similar to those in subpart FFFF
that allow the owner or operator to comply with the most stringent
requirement or comply with Table 2 for batch process vents and Table 3
for continuous process vents.  Also, as required in subpart FFFF the
threshold determination must be made for each vent and CMPU before the
streams are combined.  

Comment:  Commenter 0067 suggested that EPA clarify §63.11496(b)
concerning the calculation of the TRE index for vents that combine in a
header.  The commenter cited the reference of §63.101 within §63.11502
to conclude that the source may calculate the TRE index for the combined
vents, or it may calculate the TRE index of the individual vent that is
expected to have the lowest TRE index and use that result for the entire
group of vents.  The commenter requested confirmation of this
interpretation and asked that clarifying language be added at the end of
§63.11496(b).

Response:  As noted above, the definition of “continuous process
vent” in the final rule is the same as the definition of “process
vent” in §§63.101 and 63.107 of subpart F.  Thus, for streams that
are combined, the vent determination is made after combining the
streams. 

5.3.4	Other Definitions

Comment:  Commenter 0060 suggested incorporating the definition of
“process condenser” from the MON.

Commenters 0052 and 0060 noted that “unit operation” is used in the
definitions of continuous process vent and batch process vent but is not
defined specifically in the proposed rule.  The commenters recommended
defining “unit operation” as it is defined in the HON.  Commenter
0060 stated that the HON definition is clearer and broader than the
definition contained in the MON or Pharmaceutical MACT.

Response:  To clarify the rule we have include definitions in the final
rule for all of the terms cited by the commenters.

Chapter 6

Requirements for Metal HAP Process Vents

6.1	Definitions

Comment:  One commenter (0049) stated that the term “metal HAP”
should be defined as only the metal portion of applicable compounds
rather than the complete compounds.

Response:  The purpose of the term was to have a single, concise term
that encompasses all metal-containing HAP compounds.  The actual HAP,
emission levels in the NEI database, thresholds for standards, and the
standards are all based on the compounds rather than the metal portion
of the compounds.  It also is not clear to us why the commenter thinks
the term should be revised.  Therefore, the proposed definition has been
retained in the final rule.

6.2	Standards

	Comment:  One commenter (0049) recommended that EPA regulate HAP metals
only for new sources, as in the MON, because GACT should not be more
stringent than MACT.

	Response:  We determined that 15 urban HAP, including six HAP
metal-containing compounds, must be regulated at chemical manufacturing
area sources to achieve the section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of urban HAP. 
Existing sources must be regulated to meet this requirement and, as
stated in the proposed and final rules, we determined that GACT is 95
percent control of metal HAP from CMPUs emitting 400 lb/yr or more of
Table 1 metal HAP.

	Comment:  According to one commenter (0060), the rule should include an
outlet metal HAP concentration limit as an alternative to the percent
reduction requirement for situations where the inlet metal or
particulate concentration is low.  In addition, the commenter suggested
that the rule should allow PM to be used as a surrogate for metal HAP,
and then an opacity limit should be allowed as another alternative to
the HAP metal percent reduction requirement.

	Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, allows compliance
demonstrations based on the percent reduction of either metal HAP or PM.
 We have not added concentration or opacity limits because we do not
have information on emissions in these formats that would allow us to
determine what levels provide metal HAP reductions at least equivalent
to the 95 percent reduction requirement, but the final rule does allow
design evaluation and engineering assessment.

Comment:  One commenter (0067) requested changes to §63.11496(f)(3) to
clarify that the subpart NNNNNN compliance procedures apply only to
sources with emissions above the threshold for control, not all sources
with metal HAP.

Response:  Section 63.11496(f) of the proposed rule specified
requirements for metal HAP process vents.  Section 63.11496(f)(3) stated
“if you have an existing source, you must comply with the performance
testing and monitoring requirements in [] subpart NNNNN…” As the
commenter pointed out, this could be interpreted as requiring all
existing sources with metal HAP process vents to conduct performance
tests and monitoring.  This was not our intent.  The requirements in
§63.11496(f)(1) and (2) to calculate metal HAP emissions apply to all
facilities, but the testing and monitoring requirements should have
applied only to facilities that are in the subcategory required to use
existing controls or install controls to achieve the required 95 percent
reduction in metal HAP emissions.  This error has been corrected in the
final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0067) suggested editorial changes to Item 3.a
in Table 2 to the proposed rule to clarify that the 95 percent reduction
requirement applies to the total metal HAP emissions, not each
individual metal HAP, and that a combination of control devices may be
used.

Response:  Table 2 to the proposed rule specified that the threshold for
control of metal HAP was based on total metal HAP, but it did not
clearly convey our intent that the emission limit also applies to total
metal HAP, not each individual metal HAP.  Although we expect most
facilities will use only a single control device to meet the emission
limit, we in no way meant to imply that only a single control device can
be used.  Therefore, Table 4 to the final rule (replacing item 3 in
Table 2 to the proposed rule) contains language similar to the proposed
language for batch process vents to clarify that the 95 percent
reduction requirement applies to total metal HAP, and any combination of
control devices may be used to comply with the emission limit.

6.3	Recordkeeping

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that tracking metal HAP usage
should be allowed as an alternative to tracking emissions to demonstrate
that emissions remain below the threshold for control, just as an
organic HAP usage calculation is allowed as an alternative to
calculating batch process vent emissions.

Response:  If metal HAP usage in a CMPU is less than the 400 lb/yr, then
emissions cannot exceed 400 lb/yr and the CMPU will not be required to
install controls.  Therefore, the requested alternative has been added
to the final rule.

Comment:  To demonstrate that metal HAP emissions remain below the
threshold for control, one commenter (0067) indicated the number of
batches or processing hours may not always be the relevant parameters to
track.  For example, the commenter indicated a facility might generate
metal HAP emissions from the combustion of waste fuels that have
variable metal HAP concentrations. 

	Response:  The specific situation cited by the commenter is not
relevant because the HAP content of fuels and the HAP emissions from
combustion of fuels, including combustion in control devices, are not
used to determine source applicability.  Metal HAP emissions from
combustion in boilers, incinerators, or process heaters do not count
towards the threshold for control of metal HAP.  However, there may be
other situations where the emissions will vary by batch or time due to
variations in raw materials from different suppliers or other reasons. 
In these cases, we think the number of batches or time of operation will
still be the appropriate parameters to track.  The variation in
emissions can be accounted for in various ways depending on the specific
situation.  For example, if emissions will be low over the full range of
possible operating conditions, then an initial estimate of emissions per
batch or operating hours could be based on worst-case (highest)
emissions, which would allow you track number of batches or operating
hours to demonstrate ongoing compliance.  If emissions will vary
significantly due to different operating conditions, it might be
appropriate to develop initial estimates of emissions for multiple
scenarios, and you would then track the number of batches or operating
hours under each scenario.  Other approaches to develop initial emission
estimates so that the number of batches or operating hours would be the
appropriate tracking parameters are also possible.  Therefore, we have
not changed the recordkeeping requirements to include tracking of
alternative parameters.

Chapter 7

Requirements for Equipment Leaks

7.1	Type of Standards

Comment:  Multiple commenters (0049, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0060, 0063, and
0069) supported AVO inspections for equipment leaks or confirmed that
AVO for equipment leaks is GACT.

Commenter 0067 appreciated that AVO LDAR is less burdensome than other
LDAR requirements.  However, commenter 0067 also noted that these
requirements will create new regulatory challenges in that sensory
methods are highly subjective and could lead to disagreements with
enforcement personnel.  Commenter 0067 explained that costs for AVO LDAR
will be more than EPA estimates because facilities would have to conduct
mechanical LDAR anyway to protect themselves.

Response:  In the final rule all inspection requirements are combined
into a single program that extends the proposed LDAR to process
equipment in an affected CMPU (and associated storage tanks and transfer
operations).  We have clarified that only sensory-based inspections are
required, and we have defined “repaired” as discussed in section
7.5.  The LDAR requirements are modeled after the program from 40 CFR
63.424 and 63.8015.  Method 21 monitoring is an acceptable alternative
to the required sensory-based inspection program, but because it is not
required, the impacts analysis does not include costs for Method 21
monitoring.  We are not aware of any serious problems with the
sensory-based leak detection programs in 40 CFR part 63 subparts R and
HHHHH. 

7.2	Exemptions

Comment:  Three commenters (0037, 0060, and 0069) requested changes in
EL requirements for inaccessible and unsafe equipment.  Commenter 0037
requested a reduction in the leak inspection requirements for
non-accessible, unsafe-to-monitor, and difficult-to-monitor components,
and cited 40 CFR 60 subpart VV as an example where this is allowed.

Commenter 0060 stated EPA should clarify that the required visual
inspections may be done from a distance for unsafe or inaccessible
equipment, especially for equipment off the ground, with no permanent
platform, under extreme operating conditions, or with piping congestion
limiting access.

Commenter 0069 stated EPA should include an allowance for difficult and
unsafe to inspect equipment or areas.

Response:  The suggested reduction in the leak inspection requirements
has not been made in the final rule.  The rule does not specify required
inspection procedures (except for the frequency) or that all equipment
must be inspected in an identical manner.  The owner or operator should
implement process-specific inspection procedures that are safe and
otherwise appropriate for equipment in each affected process unit.

Comment:  Two commenters (0037 and 0060) requested that quarterly leak
inspection requirements be waived for pressure relief devices that are: 
(1) routed to a process or fuel gas system; (2) equipped with a closed
vent system routed to a control device; or (3) equipped with a rupture
disk upstream of the pressure relief device.

Commenter 0049 requested that a definition for “pressure relief device
or valve” be added, as in 40 CFR 63.161 of the HON.

Response:  The purpose of the management practice inspections is to
identify leaks to the atmosphere.  Thus, if the discharge from a
pressure relief device or valve is routed to a process, fuel gas system,
or control device, then the ductwork or closed-vent system is subject to
the inspection requirement.  Other pressure relief devices should still
be inspected in some manner.  If a rupture disk is located upstream of
the pressure relief device, one inspection option would be to verify
that the rupture disk was replaced since the last pressure release
(i.e., methods based on sight, sound, or smell are acceptable, but they
are not the only inspection procedures that may be used).  We do not
believe changes in the rule are needed to clarify these points.  In
addition, because there are no equipment-specific requirements for
pressure relief devices, we do not believe a definition of this term is
needed in the rule.  

Comment:  According to one commenter (0053), equipment in bench-scale
processes should be excluded from the periodic inspections requirement
because they have low HAP emissions.

Response:  Bench-scale processes that meet the applicability
requirements are subject to standards.  Therefore, the requested
exemption has not been included in the final rule.

Comment:  Commenter 0053 requested an exclusion from inspection
requirements for equipment in vacuum service and for equipment with no
externally-actuated shaft penetrating the housing because they have low
HAP emissions.  In addition, two commenters (0037 and 0053) requested
that leak inspections not be required for pumps equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system, as in rules like 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.

Response:  Unlike Method 21 LDAR programs, the inspection requirements
in the final rule do not require a listing of each piece of equipment or
direct contact with each subject piece of equipment when conducting the
inspection.  Instead, the final rule requires the owner or operator to
inspect for leaks occurring anywhere in an affected process unit (and
associated storage tanks and transfer operations).  A sensory-based
inspection program is likely to involve scanning the piping, process
vessels, etc. for any indications of leaks.  There is no reason to
specifically avoid checking individual pieces of equipment that are not
expected to leak or are unlikely to leak.  Furthermore, if they are
leaking, they should be repaired.  In addition, although pumps with dual
mechanical seals are exempt from instrument monitoring in many other
rules, they are still subject to weekly visual inspections for
indications of liquids dripping (among other design and operating
requirements).  Therefore, the final rule does not include the requested
exclusions.  This approach is consistent with the sensory-based
inspection programs in 40 CFR part 63 subparts R and HHHHH.

7.3	Confirmation of Leaks

Comment:  Commenter 0049 requested EPA define the terms “leak” and
“leaking equipment.” 

Response:  A leak is defined in the final rule as either:  (1)
observations of process materials escaping or being released from
process equipment or equipment as defined in §63.11502 when using
detection methods incorporating sight, sound, or smell, or (2) an
instrument reading obtained when monitoring in accordance with Method
21. that is greater than 500 ppm .  Liquids dripping or other evidence
of a potential leak that is due to a condition other than loss of
process fluid (e.g., drips of condensed water vapor from the atmosphere)
are not a leak.  As discussed in section 7.5, the term “repaired” is
also defined in the final rule.  We do not believe there is a need to
define “leaking equipment” as well.

7.4	Inspections for Batch Operations

Comment:  Commenter 0067 had concerns that LDAR for batch facilities is
fundamentally problematic because, unlike processes for which LDAR
programs were developed, batch plants operate intermittently, usually
handle liquids, use smaller volumes, and have less potential for leaks.

Commenter 0037 requested that to accommodate toll processors, §63.11498
should be modified to apply quarterly leak inspections only during times
you are subject to the regulation, because toll processors finish one
process before the monitoring period is over and the equipment may be
reconfigured within the timeframe. 

Response:  We disagree with the comment that sensory-based leak
inspection programs are inappropriate for batch plants.  Inspecting for
leaks is a good operating practice that applies equally well to any
process.  However, we agree with the second comment that inspections
must occur while an affected process unit is operating.  In addition, if
an affected process unit does not operate during a calendar quarter,
then no inspection is required during that quarter (even if the same
equipment is used for another process not subject to this rule).  

7.5	Repair and Delay of Repair

Comment:  Commenter 0049 requested EPA define the term “repaired.” 
Commenter 0060 stated EPA should clarify the repair criteria for
equipment leaks.  According to the commenter, repair means the AVO
indication of a leak is removed.  

Response:  A definition of “repaired” is needed to clarify how an
owner or operator demonstrates that compliance has been achieved.  In
the final rule, “repaired” means that the visual, audible,
olfactory, or other indications of a leak to the atmosphere have been
eliminated; that no bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during
a leak check using soap solution; or that the system will hold a test
pressure.  Alternatively, “repaired” means the owner or operator
adjusts or otherwise alters equipment found to be leaking and then
obtains an instrument reading less than 500 ppm when monitoring the
adjusted equipment in accordance with Method 21.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 stated EPA should confirm that delay of repair
language is allowed for a number of valid reasons, as in §63.171(a)
through (e) of the HON.  Commenter 0060 also stated EPA should specify
that delay of repair is allowed.

Response:  The proposed rule specified that leaks must be repaired
within 15 days or a reason for delay of repair must be documented. 
Delay of repair was not restricted to specific situations.  This
provision has been retained in the management practice requirements in
the final rule.

7.6	Recordkeeping

Comment:  Commenter 0060 asked EPA to clarify that records of “the
date and results of each inspection” in §63.11498(c)(1) are for each
entire/complete inspection of all affected equipment, not separate
records for the inspection of each piece of equipment.

Response:  It appears the commenter is asking for confirmation that the
rule does not require a listing of all equipment and documentation of
inspection results individually for each piece of equipment.  If so, the
commenter’s interpretation is correct.  The rule requires
documentation that the inspection of the CMPU occurred, identification
of any leaking equipment, and documentation of repairs (or delay of
repair).

Chapter 8

Requirements for Wastewater

8.1	Determining Affected Wastewater Streams

Comment:  As an alternative to testing, two commenters (0053 and 0069)
requested that sources be allowed to use their process knowledge to
determine if the PSHAP concentration of a wastewater stream exceeds
10,000 ppmw.

Response:  The proposed rule specified that concentration should be
determined using the procedures in §63.144(b) of the HON.  One of the
options in §63.144(b) is to use “knowledge of the wastewater”.  The
final rule clarifies the requirements by specifying that concentrations
are to be determined using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or
test data.

Comment:  Because some wastewater streams contain multiple PSHAP, one
commenter (0049) stated that the 10,000 ppmw threshold should be based
on the concentration of any individual PSHAP, not the total PSHAP
concentration.

Response:  The effective solubility of HAP in water that is in
equilibrium with a mixture of organic compounds will be less than the
solubility of pure component in water.  Thus, if both the water and some
of the organic mixture are discarded together, the concentrations of
individual HAP in the discarded wastewater stream may all be less than
10,000 ppmw while the total partially soluble HAP concentration may
exceed 10,000 ppmw.  In this case, the two-phase wastewater stream
should be subject to the separation requirement, and that would be
possible only if the threshold for control is based on the total
partially soluble HAP concentration rather than the concentration of
individual HAP.  Also note that in the final rule we have redefined the
subcategory requiring separation as those wastewater streams with
greater that 10,000 ppmw partially soluble HAP and separate organic and
aqueous phases (see the preamble for a discussion of this change since
proposal).  This ensures that the separation technique we determined is
GACT is not required for a stream on which it would be ineffective. 
Therefore, the threshold for separation in the final rule is based on
the total partially soluble HAP concentration, not the individual HAP
concentrations, and separate organic and aqueous phases. 

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that considerable savings could be
realized if sources are not required to characterize streams that are
already compliant with treatment requirements or that they designate as
requiring treatment.

Response:  Typically, concentrations are needed in order to determine
whether or not a wastewater stream requires separation of organic and
aqueous phases before treatment of the water phase and recycling or
other options for the organic phase.  Simply designating that a stream
will be “treated” generally will not satisfy the treatment/control
requirements for both the organic and aqueous phases if the wastewater
stream contains a separate organic phase.  One exception is if a
wastewater stream is treated by combustion (either onsite or offsite). 
In this case, concentrations do not matter because combustion satisfies
both the disposition requirements for an organic phase and the treatment
requirements for an aqueous phase.  Therefore, the final rule specifies
that a wastewater stream does not need to be characterized if it is to
be treated and disposed of as a hazardous waste.

Comment:  To prevent process water streams from being regulated as
wastewater, one commenter (0056) stated that the final rule should
clearly state that wastewater standards apply only to discarded process
waters passing through a point of determination and a “point of
aggregation” (i.e., consistent with the evaluation criteria in 40 CFR
63.7943(b) of the Site Remediation MACT).  Furthermore, this commenter
stated that any material determined to be subject to hazardous waste
regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270 should not be subject to
standards under the CAA.

Response:  According to the definition of “wastewater,” a
water-containing stream is wastewater only if it is discarded from a
process unit.  Therefore, process streams that contain water, including
streams entering a recovery device (see section 8.4), are not
wastewater.  We do not believe changes in the rule are needed to clarify
this point.

The term “point of determination” is used in the HON and other rules
with complicated wastewater provisions.  For example, the HON allows
determination of flows and concentrations of a wastewater stream either
at the discharge point (i.e., the point of determination) or downstream
after combination with other streams, provided the measured values are
adjusted to account for the mixing.  Provisions like this adjustment
option are not included in the final subpart VVVVVV.  Therefore, the
term “point of determination” also is not needed.

Section 63.7943 of the Site Remediation MACT specifies procedures for
estimating the total HAP concentration prior to treatment of any single
remediation material stream or to combined streams consisting of either
two or more remediation material streams or a remediation material
combined with non-remediation material.  We assume that by mentioning
the site remediation procedures as “evaluation criteria” that the
commenter is suggesting that the final rule should allow wastewater
streams to be combined with other wastewater streams or non-wastewater
before determining whether the partially soluble concentration exceeds
10,000 ppmw.  This is not allowed because it could result in dilution of
wastewater streams to concentrations below the threshold for separation.
 However, for streams with partially soluble HAP concentrations below
10,000 ppmw (or that are a single phase at a higher concentration), the
rule does not limit mixing with any other streams prior to treatment.

As discussed in the preamble, the final rule includes provisions for
dealing with overlapping rules.  Thus, if a wastewater stream is subject
to hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270, then
compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270
constitutes compliance with subpart VVVVVV if those requirements are
more stringent than the requirements in subpart VVVVVV.

Comment:  Commenter 0067 suggested that EPA drop acetaldehyde from the
partially soluble HAP listing because it is miscible in water and
unlikely to form an organic phase.  Furthermore, even if it could be
decanted, the commenter noted that it would readily evaporate because it
has a high vapor pressure (740 mm Hg).  The commenter also noted that a
facility conveys wastewater that contains 40,000 ppmw of acetaldehyde
via hard pipe to biotreatment.  The stream is mixed and diluted such
that the acetaldehyde is more likely to undergo biological destruction
than evaporate, which the commenter believes is a better practice than
that in the proposed rule.

Response:  As discussed in the preamble, the final rule does not require
separation if an owner or operator demonstrates that a wastewater stream
containing more than 10,000 ppmw of partially soluble HAP is only a
single phase.  Therefore, the requested change regarding acetaldehyde is
unnecessary and has not been made in the final rule.

8.2	Standards for Process Wastewater

8.2.1	Other Treatment Issues

Comment:  One commenter (0060) noted that owners and operators would be
unable to certify compliance with the proposed treatment requirement
because the proposed rule did not indicate what would constitute
treatment.

Response: We have included the following definition in the final rule.  
Wastewater treatment means chemical, biological, and mechanical
procedures applied to an industrial wastewater to remove, reduce, or
neutralize contaminants.

 Comment:  One commenter (0060) requested clarification that each stream
does not need to be treated individually because to do so is
inefficient, unrealistic, and inconsistent with the impacts analysis. 
According to the commenter, sources should be allowed to manage streams
in whatever combination is most effective, including combining streams
with and without HAP.

Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, does not prescribe
how to manage streams that require treatment.  Therefore, owners and
operators may manage such streams in any manner that they consider most
effective.  For example, wastewater streams may be combined with each
other or with streams that do not meet the definition of
“wastewater.”  However, wastewater streams may not be combined prior
to determining the partially soluble HAP concentration and whether there
are separate organic and aqueous phases because such combinations could
result in dilution below the threshold for which separation of organic
and aqueous phases is required.

Comment:  One commenter (0037) asked that §63.11500(a) be revised to
specify that the wastewater compliance requirements apply only when the
wastewater streams contain any HAP listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G.

Response:  It appears the commenter is concerned that the reference to
“wastewater streams” in §63.11500(a) of the proposed rule could be
interpreted as applying to all water discharges, regardless of what HAP
they contain.  However, “wastewater” is defined as “water that []
contains [] any HAP listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G”.  
This language limits the applicability of §63.11500(a) in the proposed
rule (and §63.11498(a) in the final rule) in the same manner as the
commenter’s suggested change.  Therefore, we do not think the
suggested change is necessary and have not incorporated it in the final
rule. 

8.2.2	Requirements for Separated Organic Material

Comment:  One commenter (0060) requested clarification that the options
for separated organic material (i.e., recycling to a process, using as
fuel, or disposing as hazardous waste) may be exercised either on-site
or offsite.  This commenter also noted that some recovered organic
materials (e.g., heavy oils) are not hazardous waste.  Therefore, this
commenter stated that any appropriate disposal option should be allowed,
not just disposal as hazardous waste.  Similarly, another commenter
(0049) recommended that the rule allow disposal in accordance with any
applicable regulations.  This commenter also stated that the rule should
clearly state that recycled streams from a decanter are not wastewater
streams.

Response:  GACT does not restrict the location at which separated
organic material is recycled, used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous
waste.  Therefore, the final rule states that these disposition options
may be implemented either onsite or offsite.  A separated organic
material that is recycled to a process becomes a feedstock to that
process (or if it is recycled to the same process, it is still a process
fluid within the process unit).  In either case, the act of recycling
satisfies the GACT control requirement so that the recycled stream is
not a wastewater stream and is no longer subject to the wastewater
provisions in subpart VVVVVV.  Therefore, the final rule states that
separated organic material is no longer wastewater and no longer subject
to the wastewater provisions in the rule after it has been recycled to a
process.  

 Disposal as hazardous waste is a control option because of the level of
control that it achieves, not because the separated organic material is
necessarily a hazardous waste.  We have not included “any appropriate
disposal” as a compliance option because the commenters have not
defined this term and we cannot determine that such disposal methods
would achieve HAP emission reductions at least equivalent to the
reductions achieved by the options in the rule.

8.3	Requirements for Maintenance Wastewater

Comment:  One commenter (0049) stated that EPA should provide a
definition of “maintenance wastewater” as in other NESHAP.

Response:  The introductory paragraph in §63.11502 of the proposed rule
stated that terms used in the proposed rule have the meaning given them
in referenced subparts.  Two of the referenced subparts (§63.101 and
§63.2550) define “maintenance wastewater.”  After considering the
comment, we realized that this approach is not clear because the
definitions in the two subparts are not identical.  Therefore, the final
rule specifies that the definition of “maintenance wastewater” in
§63.2550 of the MON applies for the purposes of subpart VVVVVV.

8.4	Definition of “Recovery Device” as it Relates to Wastewater

Comment:  One commenter (0049) requested that EPA revise the “recovery
device” definition to match the definition in the HON.  According to
the commenter, inlet streams to a decanter should not be considered
wastewater. 

Response:  To be wastewater, a water stream must be discarded from a
process unit.  As in previous rules, our intent was that recovery
devices for water streams are part of the process unit, and the point at
which a stream is discarded and becomes wastewater is the outlet of a
recovery device.  This was not clear in the proposed rule.  The
definition of “recovery device” in the proposed rule properly cited
decanters and other equipment for recovery of chemicals from water
streams as examples of recovery devices.  However, the definition also
stated that a recovery device is equipment used for the purpose of
recovering chemicals from gas streams, which suggested that it does not
include equipment used to recover chemicals from water streams.  This
inadvertent inconsistency has been corrected in the final rule by
removing the reference to gas streams.

	

Chapter 9

Requirements for Storage Tanks

9.1	Definitions

Comment:  Commenter 0049 asked that a definition of “process vessel”
be added to the rule because the term is used within the definition of
“storage vessel.”

Response:  To clarify the requirements, the final rule includes a
definition for “process tank” consistent with the definition in the
MON.

9.2	Standards

Comment:  Commenters 0043 and 0049 asked for clarification of
requirements for “large storage tanks” and “small storage
tanks.”  The preamble mentioned both types of tanks, but the terms are
not defined in the proposed rule.  The commenters also asked that Table
2 be modified to refer only to “large storage tanks” instead of all
tanks.

Response:  Our intent was to require the use of floating roofs or other
control technology only for “large storage tanks” that meet the tank
size and vapor pressure thresholds in NSPS subpart Kb, and management
practices would be required for all other storage tanks.  The final
standards have been modified to clarify this point.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 asked that monitoring/inspection of closed vent
systems (if complying by venting emissions to an air pollution control
device) be consistent with equipment leak requirements, such that an
audio, visual, and olfactory means to detect a leak are allowed instead
of the Method 21 monitoring required by §60.112b(a)(3)(i).  The
commenter noted that the monitoring requirement would be very burdensome
for small sites.

Response:  Method 21 monitoring of a closed-vent system on storage tanks
is unreasonable given that equipment leak requirements for similar
equipment consist of sensory-based inspections.  The final rule
specifies that closed vent systems must be inspected in accordance with
the equipment leak management practice requirements in §63.11495, not
the procedures specified in §60.112b(a)(3)(i).

9.3	Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment:  Commenter 0053 requested clarification of the recordkeeping
time period for large storage tanks.  The recordkeeping requirements in
§60.115b require some records to be kept for at least 2 years and other
records to be kept for the life of the control equipment.  However, the
proposed rule requires maintaining information for at least 5 years
[§63.11501].

Response:  To be consistent with other NESHAP, the final rule requires
that all records be kept for 5 years, thus overriding §60.115b.

Comment:  Commenter 0053 asked EPA to review reporting requirements in
§60.115(b) and include them only if justified for large storage tanks. 
The Subpart Kb reporting requirements are not aligned with or are
redundant with the semiannual reporting requirements and the
notification of compliance status notifications found in the Part 63
General Provisions and this proposal.

Response:  After consideration of this comment we decided to make a
number of changes to clarify the reporting requirements in the final
rule.  First, the final rule specifies that the reports required by
§60.115b(a)(1) and (b)(1) do not apply because certification that
floating roofs meets the specified requirements is addressed by the
certification required in §63.11501.  Second, the information regarding
deviations detected during inspections must be included in semiannual
compliance reports, not the reports required under §60.115b(a)(3) and
(4).  Third, the final rule specifies that reporting of seal gap
measurements specified in §60.115b(b)(2) does not apply; keeping
records as specified in §60.115b(b)(3) will suffice.  Fourth, initial
compliance measurements for flares is to be included in the notification
of compliance status report, not the report required by §60.115b(d). 
The source must identify which provisions it will comply with in the
NOCS report.

Chapter 10

Requirements for Transfer Operations

10.1	Exclusions from Definition of Transfer Operations

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that the definition
of transfer operations exclude transfer racks where vapor balancing is
used for all transfers, as in other rules, because there is no potential
for emissions.

	Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, allows vapor
balancing as an alternative to the management practice requirement of
submerged loading.  Even if vapor balancing is used for all transfers at
a particular transfer rack, the facility must certify in the
notification of compliance status report that standards are being met
and to document any deviations in semiannual compliance reports (i.e.,
any instance when a transfer was conducted without submerged loading, or
other acceptable methods).  We do not view this requirement as
burdensome, and it is needed to demonstrate compliance.  Therefore, we
have not made the requested change to the definition of transfer
operations.

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that the definition
of transfer operations exclude the use of vacuum trucks to collect
wastes and wastewater because these activities were not considered in
the impacts analysis and cannot be easily or cost-effectively
controlled.  The commenters also noted in MACT rules such operations are
typically handled under wastewater provisions for containers.

	Response:  The requirements for transfer operations apply to product
transfers at a transfer rack.  A vacuum truck that collects wastes from
numerous tanks or containers at a facility is not a transfer rack.  As
the commenters noted, the wastes and wastewater streams collected by a
vacuum truck are subject to the wastewater provisions in the final rule.
 Therefore, we determined that there is no need to change the definition
of transfer operations as requested by the commenters.

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that loading of
marine vessels be excluded from the definition of transfer operations.

	Response:  The management practice of submerged loading is only
generally available as control technology for loading of tank trucks and
railcars.  Therefore, the requirements do not apply to the loading or
filling of other types of vessels and containers.

	Comment:  If the final rule does not include a partial pressure de
minimis threshold below which transfer operation standards do not apply,
then one commenter (0060) requested that the definition of transfer
operations exclude loading of material that contains HAP only as an
impurity.  Even if a partial pressure de minimis threshold is included
in the final rule, another commenter (0067) requested an exclusion for
transfer of materials that contain HAP only as an impurity to minimize
the burden of identifying the transferred streams, determining the HAP
partial pressure, and keeping records.

	Response:  An exemption for transfer of materials that contain HAP only
as an impurity would be, in effect, a de minimis threshold.  As
discussed in chapter 4, emission points cannot be exempt from standards
simply because of the quantity of Table 1 HAP in the process fluid or
emission stream.  However, the compliance burden under the final rule is
considerably less than at proposal because transfer operation
requirements in the final rule apply only to transfers from affected
process units, only to transfers that contain a Table 1 HAP, and only to
transfer of product.  Also note that there is no requirement to
determine the HAP partial pressure for any transferred material. 
Furthermore, if management practices and/or alternative control
techniques are applied to all transfers at a given transfer rack, then
there is no need to identify streams or keep records (other than to
document any deviation from the requirements).  Therefore, we have not
excluded transfer of materials that contain HAP only as an impurity from
the definition of “transfer operations”.

10.2	Standards

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that routing emissions from
transfer operations for reuse in a process or for use as fuel should be
allowed as control options.

	Response:  Routing emissions to a fuel gas system or to a process
achieve HAP emission reductions at least equivalent to the reductions
from implementing submerged loading.  Therefore, the provisions in 40
CFR 63.982(d) are allowed as a compliance option in the final rule.

	Comment:  Three commenters (0049, 0067, and 0069) requested that bottom
filling be allowed in addition to submerged loading as a management
practice in §63.11495(f)(5).  Two commenters (0049 and 0060) requested
that bottom filling be listed as an acceptable control option in Table
2.

	Response:  For the proposed rule we considered bottom filling to be a
type of submerged loading.  However, upon reconsideration we realize
that the language in §63.11495(f)(5) could be interpreted as requiring
a fill pipe from the top of the tank truck or railcar.  The standards in
the final rule clarify that bottom loading is allowed.

		

Chapter 11

Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems

11.1	Monitoring Frequency

Comment:  Commenters 0049 and 0060 requested clarification in
§63.11500(b)(1) that the monthly monitoring frequency in
§63.104(c)(1)(iii) does not apply for systems with recirculating water
flow rates ≥8,000 gpm.  The commenters noted that §63.11500(b)(1)
specifies monitoring is to be conducted quarterly, and the supporting
impact documentation is based on quarterly monitoring, but
§63.104(c)(1)(iii) specifies monthly monitoring for six months and then
quarterly.  

Response:  We intended that the monitoring frequency would be quarterly
for heat exchange systems.  Item 1.a.i in Table 8 to the final rule
clarifies this provision by stating “the reference to monthly
monitoring for the first 6 months in §63.104(c)(1)(iii) does not apply;
monitoring shall be no less frequent than quarterly.”

11.2	Monitoring Plans

Comment:  Commenter 0049 suggested EPA allow use of site-specific
monitoring plans as in §63.104(c), to minimize prescriptive monitoring
where a plant is already monitoring cooling towers for leaks.

Response:  Site-specific monitoring plans are required under §63.104(c)
of the HON.  This provision was included in the proposed rule through
the cross-reference to §63.104(c), and it is retained in the final
rule.

11.3	Alternatives to Monitoring Requirements

Comment:  Commenter 0053 stated EPA should allow sources to comply with
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) as an alternative for the
cooling tower requirements, similar to the language incorporated into
subpart GGG for CGMP.

Response:  As part of the CGMP procedures, an owner or operator must
maintain the physical integrity of process equipment to prevent
malfunctions or contamination of products.  Implementing such procedures
demonstrates that process equipment is not leaking.  Therefore, the
final rule specifies that, for equipment that meets the CGMP
requirements of 21 CFR part 211, the physical integrity of the equipment
may be used as the surrogate indicator of leaks required by §63.104(c).

11.4	Delay of Repair

Comment:  To clarify that delay of repair is allowed for small cooling
tower systems, commenter 0060 requested that the text in
§63.11495(g)(1) be revised to read as follows:  “You must repair any
leak within 45 calendar days after detection of the leak or, if
necessary, delay repair and document the reason for any delay of
repair.”

Response:  We do not believe the commenter’s suggested language is
needed to clarify that delay of repair is allowed for small heat
exchange systems.  However, as discussed in the preamble, the final rule
allows sources to determine that indications of a leak do not constitute
a leak if the concentration in the cooling water does not meet the
definition of a leak as specified in §63.104(b)(6).  Therefore, instead
of the requirement to “repair any leak”, the final rule specifies
that “You must perform repairs to eliminate the leak and any
indications of a leak or demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined by §63.104(b)(6),
within 45 calendar days after indications of the leak are identified, or
you must document the reason for any delay of repair in your next
semiannual compliance report.

Chapter 12

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Recordkeeping

Comment:  One commenter (0037) requested that electronic records be
allowed for inspection and repair information in §63.11498(c). 
Commenter 0067 also asked that electronic recordkeeping be allowed for
equipment leak inspection information.  Commenter 0060 requested that we
delete the requirement to use “log books” in §63.11498(c) because
this is not common practice.  Commenter 0053 requested that the
equipment leak documentation requirements not include log books and
include electronic records.

Response:  We have concluded that records may be maintained in any
suitable form, including electronic records.  Therefore, the term ”log
books” has been removed from the final rule.

Notification of Compliance Status

Comment:  Two commenters (0052 and 0060) stated the NOCS containing
detailed and prescriptive compliance certification requirements for each
emission type is unnecessary and should be replaced with a general
certification as required under other rules.

Response:  We have concluded that a general certification for the NOCS
is sufficient and have revised the rule text to include a simplified
compliance certification.

Comment:  Commenter 0060 stated the NOCS language in §63.11501(b)
should be clarified to specifically reference the definition of
responsible official in §63.2.

Response:  We agree with the commenter’s suggestion and have
specifically referenced §63.2 for the definition of a responsible
official.

Comment:  Commenter 0056 stated EPA should allow use of the local permit
application process to document information required for the NOCS
because facilities will submit much or all of the NOCS information in a
permit application to incorporate the new requirements into a site’s
existing permit; this will reduce area source burden.

Response:  We have revised the rule text to include a simplified
compliance certification to significantly reduce the burden of preparing
and submitting the NOCS report. 

Reduce Reporting Requirements

Comment:  Several commenters (0052, 0056, 0060, 0067, and 0069) stated
that sources should be able to consolidate deviation reports with other
reports, such as those required by a title V permit, to avoid duplicate
reports.  Commenters 0052 and 0060 stated area sources already submit
periodic reports under their synthetic minor or title V operating
permits; EPA should revise §63.11501(d) to require deviation reports
only for deviations that are not or will not be reported in a title V or
synthetic minor deviation report.  Commenter 0056 stated that facilities
operating under federally-enforceable operating permits should be
allowed to use existing periodic (annual or semi-annual) reporting
obligations to comply with CMAS reporting requirements.  Commenter 0069
stated that sources with title V permits should be exempt from
overlapping provisions if meeting similar requirements under other
rules, for example, allowed to submit combined semi-annual reports. 
Commenter 0067 believes that §63.11501(d) should allow the required
semiannual report to be included in (or subsumed by) the title V
semiannual monitoring report for those facilities with title V permits.

Response:  Other reports that include the same information that is
required in semiannual reports may be used to fulfill the semiannual
reporting requirement under §63.11501(d).  However, if another report
normally includes only some of the information required by
§63.11501(d), then the owner or operator must either modify the other
report to include the additional information required by §63.11501(d)
or prepare a separate report.  The final rule clarifies these
requirements.

Comment:  Two commenters addressed the burden of semi-annual reporting. 
Commenter 0049 stated that facilities should comply with the control
requirements and recordkeeping, and EPA should eliminate requirement for
semiannual compliance reporting and should instead require the data
records be kept onsite for agency inspection or submitted upon request. 
Commenter 0053 stated EPA should not require the same semi-annual
reporting for area sources as major sources and supported the proposed
language that required semi-annual reports only for periods with a
deviation or a delay of repair.

Response:  In the final rule, semi-annual reporting is required only for
documenting deviations, delay of repairs, process changes that require a
new compliance certification, changes in the list of provisions in an
overlapping rule with which you comply, certain information related to
compliance with the alternative standard for batch or continuous process
vents, and additional uses of reactive or resinous materials.

General Provisions Requirements 

Comment:  Commenter 0060 stated that applicability/imposing almost all
40 CFR part 63 General Provisions is overly burdensome and unjustified,
because area sources have limited technical expertise and staff
resources and small emission potential compared to major sources.  
Commenter 0053 agreed EPA should review the General Provisions
requirements to not overly burden area sources.

Commenter 0060 stated that General Provisions requirements imposed
through Table 4 need to be clarified and/or modified to minimize burdens
and better reflect the intent of subpart VVVVVV. Commenter 0060
indicated that the “negative” records required by §63.1(b)(3) and
§63.10(b)(3) should be indicated as “No” in Table 4. 

Commenter 0060 stated Table 4 should clearly indicate that §63.7 and
§63.8 and §63.997 should be “No” and that subpart SS performance
testing and monitoring provisions supersede §63.7 and §63.8 where
compliance with subpart SS is required in Table 2 of subpart VVVVVV.

Commenter 0060 stated that General Provisions interactions from 40 CFR
part 63 and 40 CFR part 60 need to be clarified; the commenter
recommended that the final rule clarify that only 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions as specified in Table 4 to subpart VVVVVV apply.

Response:  In consideration of these comments, we have reviewed the
General Provisions in detail and determined that a number of provisions
are not necessary for area sources (e.g., testing and monitoring
provisions in subpart SS that take precedence).  We have also clarified
that General Provisions in parts other than Part 63 apply only if a
provision in an overlapping rule with which you comply references the
General Provisions in the other part.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 stated EPA should waive the update reporting
(within 15 days of any change to previously reported information)
required by §63.9(j).  As a different approach, Commenter 0053
recommended EPA define “process change” to limit reporting of only
those changes that affect the applicability or compliance determination.

Response:  We do not believe additional clarification of the term
“process change” is needed to limit reporting situations because
§63.11501(d)(4) in the proposed rule specified that reporting related
to process changes is required when the change “affects a compliance
determination.”  Thus, changes that do not affect a compliance
determination are not subject to reporting.  This language has been
retained in the final rule.  However, because the rule includes this
language, compliance with §63.9(j) is unnecessary.  Therefore, Table 4
in the final rule specifies that §63.9(j) does not apply. 

Comment:  Two commenters requested EPA facilitate industry requests for
approval of alternatives where Administrator action or approval is
required (e.g., extension of compliance, alternative monitoring
parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping,
alternative controls, and use of engineering assessments).  Commenter
0060 stated that these applications should be considered approved if no
action is taken by Administrator within 60 days.  Commenter 0049
suggested including language similar to language in subpart U: 
“Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted by the owner
or operator within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be
deemed approved”.

Response:  We are not adopting this suggestion because we do not think
it is an issue for sources affected by the streamlined management
practices in the final rule.  For sources affected by the other
standards we do not think it is appropriate to change the procedures for
requests of alternatives where Administrator approval is required.  

 

 

Chapter 13

Other Comments

13.1	Organization and Clarity of the Rule

Comment:  Several commenters (0045, 0049, 0054, 0056, 0067, and 0068)
suggested that the rule requirements should be written more clearly. 
One commenter (0054) suggested EPA remain consistent in its rule writing
and provide simple, easy to read format as was used in subpart HHHHHH
and other earlier area source rules, including tables following rule
language to summarize requirements for specific units or processes. 
Commenter 0068 believes the format of the rule should be revised to the
format of the Generic MACT at 40 CFR 63 subpart YY, which is more
self-contained and easier to understand.

Commenter 0056 requested that the requirements for batch process vents
in Item 1 of Table 2 be rewritten more clearly.

Commenter 0049 urged EPA to expand Table 2 of the rule to clarify rule
requirements by including testing and design evaluation, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Commenter 0067 asked for consistency in the format of Table 2 including
presenting applicability criteria consistently in the left-hand column.

One commenter (0045) noted that the applicability flow chart contained
in the Agency’s draft brochure that summarizes requirements in the
proposed rule provided information necessary to determine the intent of
the Agency, and the commenter recommended including the flow chart in
the rule.

Response:  The rule has been extensively rewritten since proposal in an
effort to improve clarity.  For example, Table 2 from the proposed rule
has been split into separate tables for each emission point.  The tables
in the final rule consistently present applicability criteria in the
left-hand column, as requested by one commenter.  The revised tables
also include additional information regarding allowed compliance
options.  We have not tabulated the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements because these provisions are typically
cross-referenced in their entirety, and we do not want to inadvertently
introduce inconsistencies. Section 63.11494(a) of the final rule also
has been rewritten to clarify the applicability criteria.  We have not
included a flow chart in the rule, but one is available on the EPA
website.

Comment:  Commenter 0067 suggested that management practices and control
requirements be combined by emission point because sources will look up
requirements on an emission point basis and expect to find all relevant
requirements in one place, and separating them leads to redundant
cross-references and unintended discrepancies.

Response:  Management practice requirements in the final rule apply to
the CMPU as a whole rather than the proposed approach of separate
requirements for each type of emission point.  Therefore, we have
retained a separate section for management practices in the final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0054) stated that EPA should include the exact
dates in the rule for the initial notification and compliance status
deadlines instead of relying on the General Provisions references.

Response:  Exact due dates for notifications and reports cannot be
specified for new sources because the required date will depend on the
facility startup date.  Dates for some notifications from either
existing or new sources depend on the timing of other activities like
construction/reconstruction or performance tests.  The General
Provisions clearly identify all of the potentially required
notifications and reports and their due dates (relative to the
compliance date or other events).  We do not think there is a compelling
need to specify actual calendar dates, where feasible, in the final
rule. 

Comment:  Commenter 0049 suggested EPA develop compliance assistance
information for smaller sites.  Another commenter (0069) suggested that
plain English guides or compliance tools (like the draft EPA brochure)
would assist small area sources that have no familiarity with the
cross-referenced rules.

Response:  After promulgation of the rule, we will consider developing
compliance assistance documents depending on interest and availability
of resources.

Comment:  One commenter (0069) asked for clarification on the storage
tank requirements in Table 2.  The commenter indicated that a flowchart
would be helpful to understand which tanks require control.

Response:  The emission limits and compliance requirements for storage
tanks are specified in Table 5 of the final rule.  This table provides
much more detail than was included in Table 2 in the proposed rule.  The
table in the final rule has separate rows with the requirements for
tanks that meet different size and vapor pressure thresholds.  Because
there are so many available compliance options, we think it is clearer
to present the information in a table rather than a flowchart.

13.2	Cross References

Comment:  Several commenters (0053, 0054, 0056, and 0067) objected to
the use of cross-references to other subparts and requested EPA include
requirements directly in this rule text to simplify it for small
facilities.

One commenter (0054) indicated their outstanding concern for the rule is
the abundant use of cross references to at least six NESHAP and one NSPS
and recommended that EPA write in all requirements and refrain from
using cross references as much as possible.  This commenter (0054) also
recommended that EPA incorporate directly any definitions used for this
subpart from other regulations to ensure better understanding of the
requirements.

Commenter 0067 suggested that EPA put all relevant rule text into
subpart VVVVVV to avoid cross-references for small facilities and
encouraged EPA to revise the rule to make it much clearer and not expect
small facilities to reconstruct what EPA had in mind by navigating such
a tangled labyrinth of citations.

Commenter 0056 stated EPA should minimize cross-references for metal HAP
process vents, should consider the sophistication of the area source
audience as inexperienced regulation readers, and should specify the
§63.11496(f)(3) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting directly in
subpart VVVVVV to reduce confusion.

Commenter 0053 requested EPA include all notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in §63.11501, including those incorporated
by reference.

Response:  Some of the provisions in other rules that were
cross-referenced from the proposed rule have been incorporated directly
into the final rule.  Typically, these provisions are either short or
provisions that we expect will be implemented by numerous sources. 
However, cross-references to lengthy provisions such as procedures for
determining the TRE for continuous process vents, conducting a
performance test or design evaluation, or inspecting a floating roof
have been retained in the final rule.  The cross-references ensure that
we do not inadvertently change a provision, thus introducing an
unintended inconsistency.  In addition, we expect that most area sources
will need to implement few of the cross-referenced provisions. 
Cross-referencing these details makes the rule easier to navigate for
those area sources that do not need to implement the cross-referenced
provisions.

To clarify the requirements, the final rule includes definitions for a
number of terms that were not defined in the proposed rule.  The final
rule also references definitions in other rules and the General
Provisions.  

13.3	Inorganic ICR

Comment:  Commenter 0069 asked about the submissions they made to
EPA’s February 2006 CAA Section 114 request, for 8 industrial
inorganic chemical manufacturing sites.  According to the commenter,
this information is more useful than 2002 NEI information and it is
important that EPA review the information.

Response:  The information is more recent than the NEI information and
informed us that these sources do not use, produce, or generate any of
the table 1 HAP. 

13.4	Emissions Levels and Health Effects

Comment:  Two commenters (0031 and 0034) expressed concern that the
proposed rule allows emissions to be increased.  Commenter 0031
specifically identified concerns with increased lead emissions.

Response:  The commenters are mistaken.  The final rule, like the
proposed rule, requires application of management practices and, for
certain emission points, the use of add-on control devices to minimize
emissions of Table 1 HAP, including lead.  No existing requirements on
chemical manufacturing area sources are relaxed by the final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0036) believed the adverse effects of HAP
emissions from area sources in the aggregate are significant and area
source rules should achieve real reductions as intended by the CAA. 
This commenter urged EPA to incorporate provisions in the area source
rules that will provide additional public health protection from the
adverse effects of emissions of HAP from area sources.

Response:  The final rule satisfies the requirement in section 112(c)(3)
of the CAA to regulate area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of Table 1 HAP.  As discussed in the preamble to the final
rule, we estimate that the final rule will reduce organic HAP emissions
by more than 200 tons per year.  These standards reduce emissions of 15
of the urban HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas as well as numerous other HAP.

13.5	Credit for Existing Controls

Comment:  One commenter (0067) believed that facilities should get
credit for reductions achieved by installing controls to meet state RACT
requirements or by facilities that voluntarily installed controls in
order to become synthetic minor sources of HAP.  The commenter noted
that these controls often achieve reductions slightly below the levels
required in the proposed rule (e.g., 90 percent for batch process
vents).  According to the commenter, it would be unfair to require these
facilities to replace the existing controls for such a small incremental
increase in performance.

	

g

È

y

Û

	

	

'

(

)

*

-

.

C

F

G

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

…

†

‡

-‡

ˆ

‹

Œ

¤

§

¨

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

æ

ç

è

é

ì

í

	

$

%

&

'

0

T

U

X

Y

s

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

—

˜

™

š

-š

ž

·

º

»

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

ù

ú

û

ü

ÿ

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

h

h

h

h

h„

h„

	š

gd„

š

š

š

š

š

š

h„

š

š

š

š

h„

h„

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

h

h

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

hz

Â

Â

Ê

Í

<

—

h5

î

1

2

;

P

S

‘

6

…

ž

¹

Ï

Ô

h/

 h

摧丧0

&

&

h

@We have maintained the 90 percent reduction for new batch vents.  We
have also determined that the overall average cost to achieve this
reduction is reasonable.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  ii 

1-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

2-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

3-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

4-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

5-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

6-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

7-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3 

8-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

9-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

10-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

11-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

12-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

13-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2