Document ID: EPA-HQ-OGC-2005-0011-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-08-04T04:00Z

6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
OAR­
2003­
0193;
FRL­____]

RIN
2060­
AL91
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Cellulose
Products
Manufacturing
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Direct
final
rule;
amendments.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
taking
direct
final
action
on
amendments
to
the
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
cellulose
products
manufacturing,
which
were
issued
on
June
11,
2002,
under
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
The
amendments
revise
the
work
practice
standards,
general
and
initial
compliance
requirements,
definitions,
and
General
Provisions
applicability,
as
well
as
correct
typographical,
formatting,

and
cross­
referencing
errors
in
the
final
rule.
We
are
issuing
the
amendments
as
a
direct
final
rule,
without
prior
proposal,
because
we
view
the
amendments
as
noncontroversial
and
anticipate
no
adverse
comments.
However,
in
the
Proposed
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register,
we
are
publishing
a
separate
document
that
will
serve
as
the
proposal
to
amend
the
NESHAP
for
cellulose
products
manufacturing
if
adverse
comments
are
filed.
2
DATES:
The
direct
final
rule
is
effective
on
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
unless
EPA
receives
adverse
comments
by
[
INSERT
DATE
30
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
or
by
[
INSERT
DATE
45
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
PROPOSED
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
if
a
hearing
is
requested
by
[
INSERT
DATE
10
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
PROPOSED
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
If
adverse
comments
are
received,
EPA
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
indicating
which
sections
will
become
effective,
and
which
provisions
are
being
withdrawn
due
to
adverse
comment.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
[
INSERT
DATE
14
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0193,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

°
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:

http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
Agency
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.

EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
3
receiving
comments.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
E­
mail:
air­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov.

°
Fax:
(
202)
566­
1741.

°
Mail:
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA,
Mailcode:
6102T,

1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Please
include
a
duplicate
copy,
if
possible.

°
Hand
Delivery:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
EPA,

1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Room
B­
108,

Washington,
DC
20460.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

We
request
that
a
separate
copy
also
be
sent
to
the
contact
person
listed
below
(
see
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Instructions.
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­

2003­
0193.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,

including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
4
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
Federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
EDOCKET
or
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,

and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
public
docket
visit
EDOCKET
on­
line
or
see
the
Federal
Register
of
May
31,
2002
(
67
FR
38102).

Docket.
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
5
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hardcopy
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
10:
00
a.
m.
at
the
EPA's
Environmental
Research
Center
Auditorium,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
or
at
an
alternate
site
nearby.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Bill
Schrock,
Organic
Chemicals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C504­
04),

Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
EPA,

Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541­
5032,
facsimile
number
(
919)
541­
3470,

electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
address
schrock.
bill@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
those
listed
in
the
6
following
table:

Category
NAICS
code*
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
326121
cellulose
food
casing
operations
325221
rayon
operations
326199,
325211
cellulosic
sponge
operations
326199
cellophane
operations
325199
cellulose
ether
operations
Federal
government
Not
affected
State/
local/
tribal
government
Not
affected
*
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.5485
of
the
national
emission
standards.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section
of
this
document.

Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
7
should
contact
Mr.
Bill
Schrock,
Organic
Chemicals
Group,

Emission
Standards
Division
(
Mail
Code
C504­
05),
U.
S.
EPA,

Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541­
5605,
electronic
mail
address
schrock.
bill@
epa.
gov.,
at
least
2
days
in
advance
of
the
potential
date
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
call
Mr.
Bill
Schrock
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
emission
standards.

Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
document
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
EPA's
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature
by
the
EPA
Administrator,
a
copy
of
this
action
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.

Comments.
We
are
publishing
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
without
prior
proposal
because
we
view
the
amendments
as
noncontroversial
and
do
not
anticipate
adverse
comments.
However,
in
the
Proposed
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register,
we
are
publishing
a
separate
document
that
8
will
serve
as
the
proposal
to
amend
the
national
emission
standards
for
cellulose
products
manufacturing
operations
if
adverse
comments
are
filed.
If
we
receive
any
adverse
comments
on
one
or
more
distinct
amendments,
we
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
which
provisions
will
become
effective,
and
which
provisions
are
being
withdrawn
due
to
adverse
comment.
We
will
address
all
public
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule,

should
the
Agency
determine
to
issue
one.
Any
of
the
distinct
amendments
in
today's
direct
final
rule
for
which
we
do
not
receive
adverse
comment
will
become
effective
on
the
previously
mentioned
date.
We
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period
on
the
direct
final
rule
amendments.

Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
must
do
so
at
this
time.

Judicial
Review.
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
CAA,

judicial
review
of
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
is
available
only
by
filing
a
petition
for
review
in
the
U.
S.

Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
by
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
FROM
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
Under
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B)

of
the
CAA,
only
an
objection
to
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
which
was
raised
with
reasonable
specificity
during
the
period
for
public
comment
can
be
raised
during
judicial
review.
Moreover,
under
section
307(
b)(
2)
of
the
9
CAA,
the
requirements
established
by
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
may
not
be
challenged
separately
in
any
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
EPA
to
enforce
these
requirements.

Outline.
The
following
outline
is
provided
to
aid
in
reading
the
preamble
to
the
direct
final
rule.

I.
Background
A.
Work
Practice
Standards
B.
General
Compliance
Requirements
C.
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
D.
Definitions
E.
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
F.
Miscellaneous
Corrections
II.
Summary
of
Amendments
III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Background
The
EPA,
under
section
112
of
the
CAA,
promulgated
the
NESHAP
for
cellulose
products
manufacturing
on
June
11,
2002
(
67
FR
40044).
The
final
rule,
codified
at
40
CFR
part
63,

subpart
UUUU,
includes
emission
limits,
operating
limits,

and
work
practice
standards,
as
well
as
general,
initial,
10
and
continuous
compliance
requirements
and
notification,

reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Following
promulgation
of
the
rule,
UCB
Films,
Inc.
and
Teepak,
LLC
petitioned
the
Agency
for
specific
changes
to
the
final
rule,
and
Dow
Chemical
Co.
informally
requested
that
we
issue
specific
amendments
to
the
final
rule.

In
response
to
industry's
requests,
today's
action
issues
amendments
to
subpart
UUUU
of
40
CFR
part
63
to
revise
the
work
practice
standards,
general
and
initial
compliance
requirements,
definitions,
and
General
Provisions
applicability.
The
amendments
also
include
corrections
of
typographical,
formatting,
and
cross­
referencing
errors
identified
after
the
final
rule
was
published.
The
amendments
are
described
below.

A.
Work­
Practice
Standards
The
cellophane
operation
at
the
UCB
Films
facility
in
Tecumseh,
Kansas
includes
a
number
of
casting
machines,
each
of
which
includes
concentrated
sulfuric
acid
baths
referred
to
as
"
A­
tanks."
Above
the
A­
tanks
are
retractable
hoods
that
can
be
moved
up
or
down.
To
capture
emissions,
the
hoods
over
the
A­
tanks
are
moved
into
the
down
position,
and
the
vent
streams
from
the
A­
tanks
are
routed
to
a
thermal
oxidizer.
For
operational
purposes,
the
hoods
over
the
A­
tanks
are
at
times
kept
in
the
up
position,
and
during
those
times
the
vent
streams
from
the
A­
tanks
are
diverted
11
to
the
stack.
UCB
Films
has
asked
whether
the
provision
in
the
final
rule
requiring
vent
streams
at
cellophane
operations
to
be
routed
through
closed­
vent
systems
to
control
devices
possibly
could
be
construed
to
apply
to
these
A­
tank
hoods
and,
therefore,
could
require
UCB
Films
to
operate
its
casting
machines
with
the
A­
tank
hoods
in
the
down
position
at
all
times.

The
cellophane
operation
at
the
UCB
Films
facility
is
the
only
one
currently
operating
in
the
U.
S.
Consequently,

the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
floor
for
cellophane
operations
was
established
based
on
the
current
emission
limitation
at
the
UCB
Films
facility.
This
MACT
floor
accounted
for
the
A­
tank
hoods
at
the
UCB
Films
facility
at
times
being
kept
in
the
up
position.

Consequently,
the
closed­
vent
system
requirement,
as
currently
stated,
would
be
inconsistent
with
MACT
for
cellophane
operations.
Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
now
making
clear
that
we
did
not
intend
for
the
closed­
vent
system
provision
to
apply
to
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation,
such
as
the
A­
tank
hoods
at
the
UCB
Films
facility.
The
final
rule
does
not
prohibit
UCB
Films
from
operating
its
casting
machines
with
the
A­
tank
hoods
in
the
up
position.

B.
General
Compliance
Requirements
12
In
response
to
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
we
changed
the
deadline
for
completing
a
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration
from
180
days
before
to
180
days
after
the
compliance
date.
To
ensure
that
a
record
of
compliance
would
be
kept
between
the
compliance
date
and
the
date
when
operating
limits
for
the
continuous
monitoring
systems
(
CMS)
are
established
(
i.
e.,
the
date
of
the
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration),
we
included
a
provision
in
§
63.5515(
b)(
1)
of
the
final
rule
that
requires
affected
sources
to
maintain
an
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
log
of
the
process
and
emissions
control
equipment
during
that
period.

Dow
has
requested
that
we
limit
the
O&
M
log
to
emission
control
equipment
because
the
amount
and
type
of
data
associated
with
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
process
are
unclear
and
onerous.
For
example,
with
the
current
text
in
the
final
rule,
companies
would
be
required
to
document
when
a
pump
used
to
inject
water
treatment
chemicals
into
boiler
feedwater
for
steam
generation
was
replaced
or
repaired.

Plant
operators
would
be
required
to
record
literally
thousands
of
data
points
related
to
the
operation
of
"
any"

aspect
of
the
production
unit,
even
though
it
would
have
no
bearing
on
emissions
or
the
compliance
parameters
required
by
the
final
rule.
According
to
Dow,
this
broad
scope
was
certain
to
be
inconsistently
applied,
and
it
would
be
13
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
demonstrate
compliance.

Dow
has
also
requested
that
we
clarify
that
the
O&
M
log
requirement
is
needed
only
for
those
control
devices
used
to
comply
with
the
standard,
not
every
control
device
unassociated
with
the
scope
of
the
final
rule.
Some
control
devices
may
be
installed
for
odor
or
State
requirements
and
do
not
need
to
be
included
in
the
O&
M
log.
For
example,
one
of
Dow's
cellulose
ether
facilities
has
a
scrubber
that,

under
a
State
permit,
is
used
to
control
non­
hazardous
air
pollutants
emissions,
and
the
facility
does
not
need
to
monitor
or
conduct
a
performance
test
on
this
scrubber
in
order
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
According
to
Dow,
with
the
current
text
in
the
final
rule,
the
facility
would
have
to
maintain
data
on
the
scrubber
for
no
other
purpose
than
that
stated
in
§
63.5515(
b)(
1).

Consequently,
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
§
63.5515(
b)(
1)
to
replace
the
term
"
process
and
emissions
control
equipment"
with
the
term
"
control
technique
used
to
comply
with
the
rule."
Dow
has
recommended
using
the
term
"
control
technique"
rather
than
"
emissions
control
equipment"
because
"
control
technique"
is
defined
in
§
63.5610
of
the
final
rule.
Dow
believes
that
this
revision
would
clarify
the
requirement
and
strike
a
more
appropriate
balance
without
being
unnecessarily
burdensome.
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
rationale
provided
by
Dow
that
a
more
narrow
14
definition
for
items
to
be
contained
in
the
O&
M
log
is
appropriate.
Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
revision
to
§
63.5515(
b)(
1).

C.
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
1.
Material
Balance
Compliance
Option
One
of
Dow's
cellulose
ether
facilities
uses
a
material
balance
to
calculate
the
amount
of
HAP
reacted,
i.
e.,

destroyed
in
the
process.
According
to
Dow,
this
facility's
demonstration
of
overall
control
efficiency
is
similar
to
the
viscose
process
material
balance.
Dow
has
requested
that
EPA
provide
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
with
a
material
balance
compliance
option
similar
to
that
for
the
viscose
process
affected
sources.
This
option
would
allow
the
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
using
a
month­
long
initial
compliance
demonstration
and
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
maintaining
a
material
balance
and
using
it
to
document
the
percent
reduction
of
total
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
emissions.
The
Agency
was
unaware
that
any
cellulose
ether
facilities
were
using
the
material
balance
technique
to
calculate
their
control
efficiency
and,
therefore,
did
not
provide
this
as
a
compliance
option
for
cellulose
ether
facilities
in
the
final
rule.
We
consider
this
a
valid
approach
for
calculating
control
efficiency
and
extending
15
this
option
to
the
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
makes
the
final
rule
consistent
with
the
viscose
process
affected
sources.
Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
providing
the
requested
material
balance
compliance
option
for
cellulose
ether
operations,
with
the
clarification
that
the
start
point
from
which
the
percent
reduction
is
determined
must
be
the
onset
of
extended
cookout.
Extended
cookout
is
a
means
of
reducing
HAP
emissions
by
allowing
the
reaction
to
occur
for
a
longer
period
of
time
than
economically
desired,
thus
allowing
for
more
of
the
HAP
to
be
consumed
in
the
reaction.
This
clarification
that
the
start
point
for
the
material
balance
compliance
option
is
necessary
because
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
actually
consume
much
of
the
HAP
in
their
reaction
(
e.
g.,
ethylene
oxide),
while
viscose
process
affected
sources
eventually
regenerate
all
of
the
HAP
in
their
reaction
(
as
either
carbon
disulfide
or
hydrogen
sulfide).

2.
Additional
Testing
Tables
3
and
5
to
the
final
rule
require
viscose
process
affected
sources
to
prepare
and
maintain
a
material
balance
that
includes
the
"
pertinent
data"
used
to
determine
the
percent
reduction
of
total
sulfide
emissions.
To
prepare
and
maintain
such
a
material
balance,
emissions
information
to
determine
control
efficiency
would
be
needed
16
in
addition
to
that
gathered
through
the
initial
performance
test.
According
to
Teepak,
the
"
pertinent
data"
language
in
the
final
rule
possibly
could
be
construed
to
require
additional
testing
to
complete
the
material
balance,

although
such
additional
testing
is
not
explicitly
required
in
the
final
rule
and
would
be
inconsistent
with
language
in
the
preamble.
Teepak
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
§
63.5535(
g)(
1)
to
clarify
that
no
additional
emission
tests
are
required.
The
Agency
did
not
intend
to
require
additional
emissions
tests
be
conducted
by
use
of
the
term
"
pertinent
data"
and
agrees
with
Teepak's
request.

Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
revision
to
§
63.5535(
g)(
1)
for
viscose
process
affected
sources.
For
consistency,
we
are
providing
the
same
clarification
for
those
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
choose
the
material
balance
compliance
option.

3.
Batch
Emission
Episodes
For
those
sources
that
choose
to
conduct
an
initial
performance
test,
Dow
has
noted
that
the
final
rule
does
not
address
the
testing
of
batch
emission
episodes
lasting
less
than
1
hour.
According
to
Dow,
the
final
rule
is
unclear
and
has
conflicting
requirements
between
the
regulatory
text
and
tables
regarding
whether
(
1)
the
batch
emission
episode
provisions
in
§
63.490(
c)
apply
to
calculating
the
emission
rate,
as
stated
in
table
4
to
the
final
rule,
(
2)
three
1­
17
hour
tests
are
required,
as
stated
in
§
63.5535(
d),
or
(
3)
a
3­
hour
test
is
required,
as
stated
in
table
3
to
the
final
rule.
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
clarify
in
§
63.5535(
d)

and
(
e)
that
batch
process
vent
tests
follow
the
provisions
listed
in
table
4
and
§
63.490(
c),
which
Dow
has
interpreted
as
allowing
testing
on
a
batch
emission
episode.
Upon
review
of
the
subject
testing
requirements
the
Agency
agrees
with
Dow's
assessment
that
the
language
in
the
text
and
tables
conflict
and
need
clarification.
Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
revision
to
§
63.5535(
d)
and
(
e).
To
account
for
the
testing
of
batch
emission
episodes,
which
may
last
less
than
1
hour
per
test
run,
we
are
also
removing
the
"
3­
hour"

term
used
in
table
3
to
the
final
rule
to
describe
the
performance
test.
This
revision
also
eliminates
any
confusion
with
the
requirement
in
§
63.5535(
d)
for
three
1­

hour
test
runs.

4.
Uncontrolled
Emissions
Both
Teepak
and
Dow
have
noted
that
table
3
to
the
final
rule
requires
operations
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
by
"
measuring"
the
average
uncontrolled
emissions
during
the
compliance
demonstration
or
performance
test.
However,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
month­
long
initial
performance
tests,
nor
does
it
require
any
additional
testing
after
the
initial
18
performance
tests
of
control
device
efficiency.
Teepak
has
recommended
that
EPA
change
the
term
"
measured"
in
table
3
to
the
final
rule
to
"
determined"
to
clarify
that
no
additional
testing
or
measurement
was
intended
for
cellulose
food
casing
operations
or
any
other
viscose
process
affected
source.
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
tables
3
and
4
to
the
final
rule
to
allow
engineering
assessments
to
be
used
as
an
alternative
for
determining
the
uncontrolled
emissions
from
process
vents.
According
to
Dow,
engineering
assessments
are
allowed
in
other
NESHAP,
including
the
Hazardous
Organic
NESHAP
(
HON),
the
Pharmaceutical
NESHAP,

and
the
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
NESHAP.

The
Agency
agrees
with
Dow
and
Teepak
that
using
the
term
"
determined"
instead
of
"
measured"
is
consistent
with
the
approach
of
using
an
engineering
assessment
as
an
alternative
for
determining
uncontrolled
emissions.
Through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
clarification
to
table
3
to
the
final
rule
suggested
by
Teepak
for
viscose
process
affected
sources.
For
consistency,
we
are
providing
the
same
clarification
for
those
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
choose
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
using
a
month­
long
compliance
demonstration.
We
are
also
making
the
revision
to
table
3
to
the
final
rule
suggested
by
Dow
for
cellulose
ether
affected
sources.
This
revision
should
provide
cellulose
19
ether
affected
sources
with
some
flexibility
in
determining
uncontrolled
emissions,
whether
they
are
conducting
an
initial
performance
test
or
a
month­
long
compliance
demonstration.
For
consistency,
we
are
also
providing
the
viscose
process
affected
sources
with
the
same
option
to
use
engineering
assessments.
We
are
not
making
the
revision
to
table
4
to
the
final
rule
suggested
by
Dow
because
this
issue
will
already
be
addressed
in
the
revision
to
table
3
of
the
final
rule.
Table
4
of
the
final
rule
is
designed
to
describe
the
performance
testing
requirements,
and
if
a
source
is
using
other
means
(
e.
g.,
engineering
assessments)

to
determine
uncontrolled
emissions,
then
those
means
should
be
described
in
table
3
of
the
final
rule.

5.
Equations
Dow
has
noted
that
§
63.5535(
e)(
2)
requires
sources
to
calculate
the
"
total
sulfide
emission
rate."
According
to
Dow,
it
is
not
necessary
for
a
source
to
calculate
the
total
sulfide
emission
rate
if
it
does
not
use
sulfur
compounds,

specifically
carbon
disulfide,
in
its
process.
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
clarify
the
final
rule
so
that
§
63.5535(
e)(
2)
is
used
only
for
viscose
processes
that
actually
use
carbon
disulfide.
Through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
revising
§
63.5535(
e)
to
require
sources
to
use
the
equations
"
as
applicable."
This
revision
should
account
for
those
sources
(
e.
g.,
cellulose
ether
20
affected
sources)
for
which
an
equation
(
e.
g.,
total
sulfide
emission
equation)
may
not
apply.

6.
Establishing
Operating
Limits
Section
63.5535(
h)(
1)
of
the
final
rule
references
§
63.505(
b)(
2)
regarding
the
establishment
of
operating
limits
for
continuous
processes.
Section
63.505(
b)(
2)

requires
sources
to
use
the
average
of
the
maximum
values
to
establish
a
maximum
level
and
the
average
of
the
minimum
values
to
establish
a
minimum
level.
Teepak
has
argued
that
this
procedure
inappropriately
restricts
the
range
in
which
their
scrubbers
can
be
operated
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
reduction
requirements.
According
to
Teepak,

the
capabilities
of
the
scrubber
under
a
range
of
conditions,
not
simply
the
average
capabilities,
should
be
used
to
determine
maximum
and
minimum
operating
limits.

Teepak
has
recommended
that
we
replace
the
procedures
of
§
63.505(
b)(
2)
with
those
of
§
63.505(
c),
which
require
sources
to
establish
parameter
operating
levels
based
on
performance
tests,
supplemented
by
engineering
assessments
and/
or
manufacturer's
recommendations.
According
to
Teepak,

this
change
would
allow
the
development
of
true
operating
limits
of
the
control
or
recovery
device.
Teepak
has
also
recommended
that
we
revise
table
3
to
the
final
rule
to
clarify
that
a
range
of
scrubber
operating
values
is
acceptable.
21
The
Agency
agrees
with
Teepak
that
the
use
of
average
values
to
establish
the
minimum
and
maximum
operating
limits
for
the
scrubbers
will
not
result
in
an
effective
measure
for
assessing
the
operational
performance
of
the
scrubbers.

By
using
the
averages
for
establishing
both
the
minimum
and
maximum
values
for
the
scrubber
operating
range,
an
overly
restrictive
range
is
set,
while
the
scrubbers
can
be
demonstrated
to
operate
effectively
operate
over
a
much
broader
range.
Therefore,
through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
revisions
to
§
63.5535(
h)(
1),
(
5),
and
(
6).
We
are
also
revising
tables
2,
3,
and
6
to
final
rule.
For
consistency,
we
are
applying
the
requirement
to
use
§
63.505(
c)
to
both
continuous
and
batch
processes.

D.
Definitions
1.
Process
Unit/
Source
Category
In
response
to
a
comment
on
the
proposed
rule,
we
added
a
definition
for
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
to
the
final
rule
to
help
define
the
boundaries
around
equipment
for
equipment
leak
monitoring.
We
also
revised
the
definition
for
"
cellulose
ether
operation"
to
provide
greater
clarification
of
what
it
includes,
and
we
revised
the
definition
for
"
cellulose
ether
process"
to
specifically
exclude
solids
handling.
However,
the
requirements
in
the
final
rule
refer
only
to
the
definitions
for
"
cellulose
22
ether
operation"
and
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit,"
which
do
not
exclude
solids
handling
equipment.
Dow
has
argued
that,
without
clear
definitions,
the
regulated
industry
cannot
delineate
the
equipment
included
in
the
process
unit
and
subject
to
the
final
rule.
As
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
is
currently
defined,
equipment
in
the
solids
handling
process
would
be
a
part
of
the
cellulose
ether
process
unit
and
would
be
subject
to
the
equipment
leak
provisions.

According
to
Dow,
it
is
doubtful
that
the
HAP
concentration
in
the
solids
handling
equipment
would
exceed
5
percent,
and
unnecessary
records
would
be
needed
to
document
that
the
equipment
is
not
monitored.
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
the
definition
for
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
to
specifically
include
the
term
"
cellulose
ether
process."

According
to
Dow,
revising
this
definition
would
be
a
clear
and
simple
approach
to
exclude
equipment
not
a
part
of
the
cellulose
ether
process
unit
and,
therefore,
not
subject
to
equipment
leaks
monitoring.
Dow
has
also
recommended
that
EPA
revise
the
definition
for
"
Cellulose
Ethers
Production
source
category"
to
refer
to
"
the
collection
of
cellulose
ether
operations"
to
provide
a
similar
clarification.

The
Agency
agrees
with
Dow
that
revising
the
definitions
will
provide
clarity
and
consistency
to
what
equipment
is
subject
to
the
equipment
leak
monitoring.

Additionally,
based
on
a
review
of
the
information
presented
23
to
EPA
during
the
initial
development
of
these
provisions
the
solids
handling
equipment
is
unlikely
to
exceed
the
5
percent
HAP
threshold
and,
as
the
rule
is
currently
written,

unnecessary
records
would
need
to
be
kept.
Through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
revisions
to
the
definitions
for
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
and
"
Cellulose
Ethers
Production
source
category."

For
consistency,
we
are
also
revising
several
other
definitions.
We
are
revising
the
definitions
for
"
cellulose
food
casing
process
unit,"
"
cellulosic
sponge
process
unit,"

and
"
rayon
process
unit"
to
specifically
include
the
term
"
viscose
process."
We
are
revising
the
definition
for
"
cellophane
process
unit"
to
specifically
include
the
terms
"
viscose
process"
and
"
solvent
coating
process."
Finally,

we
are
revising
the
definition
for
"
Miscellaneous
Viscose
Processes
source
category"
to
specifically
include
the
collection
of
"
cellulose
food
casing,
rayon,
cellulosic
sponge,
and
cellophane
operations."

Dow
has
also
recommended
that
EPA
revise
the
tables
in
the
final
rule
to
refer
to
the
definition
for
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
instead
of
"
cellulose
ether
operation."

According
to
Dow,
this
change
would
allow
EPA
to
clearly
define
the
equipment
subject
to
control.
Specifically,
Dow
believes
that
EPA
needs
to
define
the
boundaries
of
the
process
unit
to
determine
where
a
wastewater
process
stream
24
is
discarded
and,
thus,
becomes
a
wastewater.
According
to
Dow,
with
the
broadly
defined
term
"
cellulose
ether
operation,"
no
stream
ever
exits
the
process
and
becomes
discarded.

We
do
not
believe
that
replacing
the
term
"
cellulose
ether
operation"
with
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
in
the
tables
is
necessary
or
even
desirable.
Such
a
revision
would
effectively
exclude
from
regulation
those
equipment,

such
as
heat
exchanger
systems,
wastewater
and
waste
management
units,
and
cooling
towers,
that
are
not
associated
with
the
cellulose
ether
process
unit
but
are
located
at
a
cellulose
ether
operation.
Additionally,
these
sources
were
considered
in
establishing
the
MACT
floor.

Consequently,
we
are
not
making
this
suggested
revision
to
the
final
rule.

2.
Process
Vent
In
response
to
a
comment
on
the
proposed
rule,
we
revised
the
definition
of
"
process
vent"
in
the
final
rule
to
refer
to
"
a
point
of
discharge
to
the
atmosphere
.
.
.
of
a
HAP­
containing
gas
stream
from
the
process
operation."

Noting
that
the
term
"
process
operation"
is
not
defined
in
the
final
rule,
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
replace
it
with
the
term
"
unit
operation."
According
to
Dow,
the
term
"
unit
operation"
is
already
defined
in
the
final
rule
because
§
63.5610
references
the
definitions
from
§
63.101
of
the
HON.
25
Dow
has
also
expressed
concern
that
the
definition
for
"
process
vent"
in
the
final
rule
does
not
define
the
basis
for
the
concentration
of
a
process
vent,
e.
g.,
HAP
or
total
organic
compound
(
TOC).
Consequently,
Dow
has
recommended
that
EPA
revise
the
definition
for
"
process
vent"
to
state
that
it
does
not
include
".
.
.
vents
with
.
.
.
a
concentration
less
than
50
parts
per
million
by
volume
(
ppmv)
of
HAP
or
TOC
.
.
.."
EPA
agrees
with
Dow's
comment
concerning
the
definition
of
process
vent.
Specifically,
we
agree
that
through
the
reference
to
§
63.101
of
the
HON
and
our
definition
of
"
process
vent"
we
have
created
an
inconsistency
in
the
rule.
To
correct
this
inconsistency
we
are
incorporating
the
characteristics
of
the
vent
stream
from
the
HON
into
our
process
vent
definition.
Through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
making
the
suggested
clarifications
to
the
definition
for
"
process
vent."

E.
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
Facilities
subject
to
the
final
rule
are
required
to
submit
periodic
compliance
reports
containing,
among
other
things,
information
on
episodes
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
that
occurred
during
each
reporting
period.
UCB
Films
has
asked
whether
the
routine
breaks
of
film
(
commonly
called
"
wet
breaks")
that
occur
in
its
casting
machines
possibly
could
be
construed
as
falling
within
the
definition
for
"
malfunction."
The
wet
breaks
would
not
affect
UCB's
26
ability
to
meet
the
standards.
We
do
not
consider
this
type
of
routine
event
to
fall
within
the
definition
for
"
malfunction"
and
believe
it
should
not
be
included
within
the
reporting
requirement.
See
67
FR
72875,
72881
(
December
9,
2002);
68
FR
32586,
32592­
32593
(
May
30,
2003).
For
consistency,
this
interpretation
also
applies
to
routine
breaks
of
cellulose
food
casing
and
rayon.

UCB
Films
also
requested
clarification
of
the
reporting
obligations
for
its
casting
machines
when
they
are
temporarily
turned
off
to
fix
wet
breaks.
Clarification
may
also
be
needed,
according
to
UCB
Films,
regarding
the
subsequent
restart
of
the
casting
machines
after
the
wet
breaks
are
fixed.
The
recent
revisions
to
the
40
CFR
part
63
General
Provisions
state
that
there
is
no
duty
to
report
the
number
or
duration
of
these
events
or
to
describe
each
one
individually
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
as
long
as
the
provisions
of
the
startup,
shutdown,

and
malfunction
plan
are
followed
and
the
report
contains
a
statement
to
that
effect;
see
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i)
and
68
FR
32592.
No
changes
to
subpart
UUUU
of
40
CFR
part
63
are
needed
to
address
this
issue.

F.
Miscellaneous
Corrections
Through
the
amendments
to
the
final
rule,
we
are
also
correcting
various
typographical,
formatting,
and
crossreferencing
errors
found
in
the
final
rule
and
updating
the
27
cross­
references,
where
necessary,
to
include
the
amended
sections.

II.
Summary
of
Amendments
Today's
amendments
to
subpart
UUUU
are
described
in
Table
1
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
1.
SUMMARY
OF
AMENDMENTS
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
40
CFR
PART
63
Citation
Change
§
63.5490(
d)
Change
"
meet"
to
"
met"
for
verb
tense
consistency.

§
63.5515(
b)(
1)
and
(
f)
introductory
paragraph
Remove
the
requirement
in
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
to
maintain
a
log
for
O&
M
of
process
equipment
and
state
that
the
O&
M
log
is
only
required
for
control
devices
used
to
comply
with
the
rule.

Replace
the
phrase
"
to
of
this
subpart"
in
(
f)
introductory
paragraph
with
"
to
this
subpart."

§
63.5535(
d),
(
e)
introductory
paragraph,
(
g)(
1),
and
(
h)
Revise
paragraph
(
d)
to
reference
§
63.490(
c)
for
batch
process
vents.

Revise
(
e)
introductory
paragraph
to
reference
§
63.490(
c)
for
batch
process
vents.
Also
note
that
sources
must
use
the
equations
as
applicable.

Revise
paragraph
(
g)(
1)
to
specify
that
no
additional
testing
is
required
for
viscose
process
affected
sources
required
to
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
of
their
nonrecovery
control
devices.
28
Replace
references
to
§
63.505(
b)(
2)
and
(
3)
in
paragraphs
(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
with
references
to
§
63.505(
c)
for
procedures
used
to
establish
operating
limits.
Combine
paragraphs
(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
to
apply
to
both
continuous
and
batch
processes.
Renumber
paragraphs
(
h)(
3)
through
(
10)
as
paragraphs
(
h)(
2)
through
(
9).

Revise
paragraphs
(
h)(
5)
and
(
6)
to
require
affected
sources
to
record
the
range
of
scrubber
parameter
values,
rather
than
the
average.

Renumber
paragraph
(
h)
as
paragraph
(
i)
and
add
a
new
paragraph
(
h)
that
includes
an
initial
compliance
option
for
cellulose
ether
operations
similar
to
the
material
balance
option
for
the
viscose
process
affected
sources.
For
cellulose
ether
operations
using
extended
cookout
under
this
option,
specify
that
the
start
point
from
which
the
percent
reduction
is
determined
must
be
the
onset
of
extended
cookout.
Also
specify
that
no
additional
testing
is
required
for
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
required
to
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
of
their
non­
recovery
control
devices.

§
63.5545(
e)(
4)
Change
the
citation,
which
describes
the
data
to
be
excluded
from
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
data
averages,
from
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
to
paragraph
(
e)(
5)
of
this
section.

§
63.5610(
a)
and
(
g)
Revise
paragraph
(
a)
by
changing
the
citation
for
operating
limit
provisions
from
§
63.505(
b)
to
§
63.505(
c).
29
Revise
the
definitions
of
"
Cellulose
Ethers
Production
source
category"
and
"
Miscellaneous
Viscose
Processes
source
category"
in
paragraph
(
g)
to
include
a
reference
to
the
types
of
operations
that
are
included
in
the
source
categories
(
cellulose
ether,
cellophane,
cellulose
food
casing,
cellulosic
sponge,
and
rayon).

Revise
the
definition
of
"
cellulose
ether
process
unit"
in
paragraph
(
g)
to
include
the
term
"
cellulose
ether
process."
Revise
the
definitions
of
"
cellulose
food
casing
process
unit,"
"
cellulosic
sponge
process
unit,"
and
"
rayon
process
unit"
to
include
the
term
"
viscose
process."
Revise
the
definition
of
"
cellophane
process
unit"
to
include
the
terms
"
viscose
process"
and
"
solvent
coating
process."

Revise
the
definition
of
"
process
vent"
in
paragraph
(
g)
to
replace
the
undefined
term
"
process
operation"
with
the
defined
term
"
unit
operation"
and
to
define
the
concentration
basis
for
process
vents
as
HAP
or
TOC.

Table
1,
items
1.
c.
i
and
ii,
1.
f.
ii
and
iii,
9,
10,
and
11
Remove
the
numbering
for
individual
requirements
under
items
1.
c.
i
and
ii.

Revise
items
1.
f.
ii
and
iii,
item
10,
and
item
11
to
clarify
that
the
standards
for
closed­
vent
systems
at
cellophane
operations
do
not
apply
to
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation.

Revise
item
9
to
replace
the
phrase
"
liquid
streams
in
open
system
2"
with
"
liquid
streams
in
open
systems."

Designate
the
affected
source
text
under
item
11
as
"
a."
30
Table
2,
items
3
and
4
Revise
items
3
and
4
to
require
affected
sources
to
maintain
the
scrubber
parameters
within
a
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration,
rather
than
above
or
below
an
average
value.

Table
3,
introductory
statement
and
items
1.
a.
i.(
1)
and
(
2);
1.
b.
i.(
1)
and
(
2);
1.
c.
i.(
1);
1.
c.
ii.(
1);
1.
d.
i.(
1);
1.
e.
i.(
1);
1.
f.
i.(
1);
1.
f.
ii
and
iii;
2.
a.
i;
2.
a.
i.(
1);
3.
a;
6.
a.
i.(
1);
and
12.
a.
i.(
2)
Revise
the
introductory
statement
for
Table
3
to
include
§
63.5535(
h)
in
the
list
of
referenced
provisions.

Regarding
the
requirement
in
items
1.
a.
i.(
1),
1.
b.
i.(
1),
1.
c.
i.(
1),
1.
c.
ii.(
1),
1.
d.
i.(
1),
1.
e.
i.(
1),
1.
f.
i.(
1),
2.
a.
i.(
1),
3.
a,
and
6.
a.
i.(
1)
to
"
measure"
average
uncontrolled
emissions
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration,
change
"
measured"
to
"
determined."
Provide
sources
with
the
option
to
use
engineering
assessments
to
determine
uncontrolled
emissions.

Revise
items
1.
a.
i.(
2)
and
1.
b.
i.(
2)
to
replace
the
term
"
average
operating
parameter
values"
with
"
range
of
operating
parameter
values."

Revise
items
1.
f.
ii
and
iii
to
clarify
that
the
standards
and
initial
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems
at
cellophane
operations
do
not
apply
to
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation.
31
Revise
item
2.
a.
i
to
change
"
folling"
to
"
rolling."

Split
item
3.
a.
into
two
parts
 
items
3.
a
and
3.
b.
Item
3.
a
applies
to
cellulose
ether
operations
using
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
Item
3.
b
applies
to
cellulose
ether
operations
using
a
material
balance
compliance
demonstration
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
Include
under
item
3.
b
the
requirements
associated
with
the
material
balance
compliance
demonstration.
Include
under
items
3.
a
and
3.
b
the
option
to
use
engineering
assessments
to
determine
uncontrolled
emissions.

Revise
items
3.
a.
i.(
1)
and
(
2)
to
remove
the
term
"
3­
hour."

Remove
the
numbering
for
individual
requirements
under
item
12.
a.
i.(
2).

Table
4,
introductory
statement
and
items
3
and
4.
a.
i.(
2).(
b)
Revise
the
introductory
statement
for
Table
4
to
include
§
63.5535(
h)(
1)
in
the
list
of
referenced
provisions.

Reposition
the
requirements
for
item
3
into
their
proper
columns.

Correct
the
misspelling
for
"
potentially"
in
item
4.
a.
i.(
2).(
b).

Table
5,
items
1.
a.
ii
and
iii;
3.
a;
5.
a.
i,
ii,
and
iv;
and
8
Revise
items
1.
a.
ii
and
iii
to
clarify
that
the
standards
and
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems
do
not
apply
to
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation.

Under
item
1.
a.
ii,
designate
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems
as
"
iii,"
instead
of
"
c."
32
Split
item
3.
a.
into
two
parts
 
items
3.
a
and
3.
b.
Item
3.
a
applies
to
cellulose
ether
operations
using
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
Item
3.
b
applies
to
cellulose
ether
operations
using
a
material
balance
compliance
demonstration
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
Include
under
item
3.
b
the
requirements
associated
with
the
material
balance
continuous
compliance
option.

Under
items
5.
a.
i,
ii,
and
iv,
remove
the
numbering
for
individual
emission
limits
and
standards
(
e.
g.,
remove
"(
1),"
"(
2),"
and
"(
3)").
Also,
change
the
numbering
for
individual
continuous
compliance
requirements
(
e.
g.,
change
"(
a),"
"(
b),"
and
"(
c)"
to
"(
1),"
"(
2),"
and
"(
3)").

Correct
the
misspelling
for
"
wastewater"
in
item
8.

Table
6,
items
3
and
4
Revise
items
3
and
4
to
require
affected
sources
to
maintain
the
scrubber
parameters
within
a
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration,
rather
than
above
or
below
an
average
value.

III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
C.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
5173,
October
4,

1993),
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and,
therefore,
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
standards
that
may:
33
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect,
in
a
material
way,
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,

local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
are
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
they
do
not
meet
any
of
the
above
criteria.
Consequently,
this
action
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

D.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
makes
clarifying
changes
to
the
final
rule
and
imposes
no
new
information
collection
requirements
on
the
industry.
This
action
revises
a
work
practice
standard,

general
and
initial
compliance
requirements,
definitions,

and
General
Provisions
applicability,
as
well
as
correct
34
typographical,
formatting,
and
cross­
referencing
errors
in
the
final
rule.
The
OMB
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
existing
regulations
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paper
Work
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
and
has
assigned
OMB
control
number
2060­
0488
(
EPA
ICR
No.
1974.02).

Copies
of
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)

document(
s)
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
by
mail
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,

Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,

or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,

validating,
and
verifying
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
35
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.

The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
the
direct
final
rule
amendments.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
direct
final
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:

(
1)
a
small
business
that
has
fewer
than
1,000
employees
for
NAICS
codes
325221,
325188,
and
325199;
fewer
than
750
employees
for
NAICS
code
325211;
or
fewer
than
500
employees
for
NAICS
codes
326121
and
326199;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,

school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
direct
final
rule
amendments
on
small
entities,
the
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
36
direct
final
rule
amendments
will
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,

local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.

Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
37
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA's
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,

educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,

and
tribal
governments,
in
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year,
nor
do
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
significantly
or
uniquely
impact
small
governments,
because
the
amendments
contain
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
the
UMRA
do
not
apply
to
the
direct
final
rule
amendments.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),

requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
38
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"

are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,

or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

The
direct
final
rule
amendments
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
The
amendments
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.

None
of
the
affected
facilities
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
the
direct
final
rule
amendments.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
the
EPA,

State
and
local
governments,
the
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
39
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
The
direct
final
rule
amendments
do
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175,

because
tribal
governments
do
not
own
or
operate
any
sources
subject
to
the
amendments
in
the
direct
final
rule.
Thus,

Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
direct
final
rule
amendments.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)

applies
to
any
rule
that
EPA
determines
(
1)
is
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)

the
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
addressed
by
the
rule
has
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
then
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
that
EPA
considered.

The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
40
the
rule.
The
direct
final
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045,
because
the
action
is
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.

Furthermore,
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
have
been
determined
not
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
The
direct
final
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"

(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
the
amendments
are
not
considered
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
(
Public
Law
104­
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
and
procurement
activities,
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,

sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
41
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

This
action
does
not
involve
technical
standards.

Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.),
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that,
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
The
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
direct
final
rule
amendments
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
direct
final
rule
amendments
are
not
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
The
direct
final
rule
will
become
effective
on
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
unless
adverse
comments
are
received
by
[
INSERT
DATE
45
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
NESHAP
for
Cellulose
Products
Manufacturing
­
Direct
Final
Rule
­
page
42
of
75
DIRECT
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,

Cellulose
products
manufacturing,
Hazardous
substances,

Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:

Stephen
L.
Johnson
Administrator.
43
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,

chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
­­
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

Subpart
UUUU­
 
[
AMENDED]

2.
Section
63.5490
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
d)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.5490
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
An
affected
source
is
a
new
affected
source
if
you
began
construction
of
the
affected
source
after
August
28,

2000
and
you
met
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.5485
at
the
time
you
began
construction.

*
*
*
*
*

3.
Section
63.5515
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
f)
introductory
paragraph
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.5515
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

(
b)
*
*
*

(
1)
During
the
period,
if
any,
between
the
compliance
date
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.5495
and
the
44
date
upon
which
continuous
monitoring
systems
(
CMS)
have
been
installed
and
validated
and
any
applicable
operating
limits
have
been
set,
you
must
maintain
a
log
detailing
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
any
control
technique
used
to
comply
with
this
subpart.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
You
are
not
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
when
you
use
any
of
the
units
specified
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)

through
(
5)
of
this
section
to
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
or
work
practice
standard
in
table
1
to
this
subpart.
You
are
also
exempt
from
the
continuous
compliance,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
specified
in
tables
5
through
9
to
this
subpart
for
any
of
these
units.
This
exemption
applies
to
units
used
as
control
devices
or
wastewater
treatment
units.

*
*
*
*
*

4.
Section
63.5535
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
paragraphs
(
d),
(
e)
introductory
paragraph,
(
g)(
1),
and
(
h);

b.
Renumbering
paragraph
(
h)
as
paragraph
(
i);
and
c.
Adding
a
new
paragraph
(
h).

The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
63.5535
What
performance
tests
and
other
procedures
must
I
use?

*
*
*
*
*
45
(
d)
You
must
conduct
three
separate
test
runs
for
each
performance
test
required
in
this
section,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
3).
Each
test
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour,

except
as
specified
in
§
63.490(
c)
for
batch
process
vents.

(
e)
Except
as
specified
in
§
63.490(
c)
for
batch
process
vents,
you
may
use
the
equations
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
as
applicable
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
for
each
performance
test.

*
*
*
*
*

(
g)
*
*
*

(
1)
Viscose
process
affected
sources
that
must
use
non­
recovery
control
devices
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
table
1
to
this
subpart
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
of
their
non­
recovery
control
devices
according
to
the
requirements
in
table
4
to
this
subpart
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
of
their
non­
recovery
control
devices
and
incorporate
this
information
in
their
material
balance.
No
additional
performance
tests
are
required.

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
Cellulose
ether
affected
sources
using
the
material
balance
compliance
demonstration
must
conduct
a
month­
long
initial
compliance
demonstration
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
h)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
table
3
to
this
subpart.
46
(
1)
Cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
must
use
non­
recovery
control
devices
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
table
1
to
this
subpart
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
of
their
non­
recovery
control
devices
according
to
the
requirements
in
table
4
to
this
subpart
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
of
their
non­
recovery
control
devices
and
incorporate
this
information
in
their
material
balance.
No
additional
performance
tests
are
required.

(
2)
Cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
use
recovery
devices
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
table
1
to
this
subpart
must
determine
the
quantity
of
organic
HAP
fed
to
the
process
and
the
quantity
of
organic
HAP
recovered
using
the
recovery
device
and
incorporate
this
information
in
their
material
balance.

(
3)
Cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
use
cellulose
ether
process
changes
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
table
1
to
this
subpart
must
determine
the
quantity
of
organic
HAP
used
before
and
after
the
process
change
and
incorporate
this
information
in
their
material
balance.
For
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
that
use
extended
cookout,
the
start
point
from
which
the
percent
reduction
is
determined
must
be
the
onset
of
extended
cookout.

(
4)
Using
the
pertinent
material
balance
information
47
obtained
according
to
paragraphs
(
h)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section,
cellulose
ether
affected
sources
must
calculate
the
monthly
average
percent
reduction
for
their
affected
source
over
the
month­
long
period
of
the
compliance
demonstration.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
During
the
period
of
each
compliance
demonstration,
you
must
establish
each
site­
specific
operating
limit
in
table
2
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)

through
(
9)
of
this
section.

(
1)
For
continuous,
batch,
and
combinations
of
continuous
and
batch
process
vents,
establish
your
sitespecific
operating
limit
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.505(
c),

except
that,
if
you
demonstrate
initial
compliance
using
a
month­
long
compliance
demonstration,
references
to
"
performance
test"
mean
"
compliance
demonstration"
for
purposes
of
this
subpart.

(
2)
For
condensers,
record
the
outlet
(
product
side)

gas
or
condensed
liquid
temperature
averaged
over
the
same
period
as
the
compliance
demonstration
while
the
vent
stream
is
routed
and
constituted
normally.
Locate
the
temperature
sensor
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
temperature.

(
3)
For
thermal
oxidizers,
record
the
firebox
temperature
averaged
over
the
same
period
as
the
compliance
48
demonstration.
Locate
the
temperature
sensor
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
temperature.

(
4)
For
water
scrubbers,
record
the
range
of
the
pressure
drop
and
flow
rate
of
the
scrubber
liquid
over
the
same
time
period
as
the
compliance
demonstration
while
the
vent
stream
is
routed
and
constituted
normally.
Locate
the
pressure
and
flow
sensors
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
parameter.

(
5)
For
caustic
scrubbers,
record
the
range
of
the
pressure
drop,
flow
rate
of
the
scrubber
liquid,
and
pH,

conductivity,
or
alkalinity
of
the
scrubber
liquid
over
the
same
time
period
as
the
compliance
demonstration
while
the
vent
stream
is
routed
and
constituted
normally.
Locate
the
pressure
sensors,
flow
sensors,
and
pH,
conductivity,
or
alkalinity
sensors
in
positions
that
provide
representative
measurements
of
these
parameters.
Ensure
the
sample
is
properly
mixed
and
representative
of
the
fluid
to
be
measured.

(
6)
For
flares,
record
the
presence
of
a
pilot
flame.

Locate
the
pilot
flame
sensor
in
a
position
that
provides
an
accurate
and
continuous
determination
of
the
presence
of
the
pilot
flame.

(
7)
For
biofilters,
record
the
pressure
drop
across
the
biofilter
beds,
inlet
gas
temperature,
and
effluent
pH
averaged
over
the
same
time
period
as
the
compliance
49
demonstration
while
the
vent
stream
is
routed
and
constituted
normally.
Locate
the
pressure,
temperature,
and
pH
sensors
in
positions
that
provide
representative
measurement
of
these
parameters.
Ensure
the
sample
is
properly
mixed
and
representative
of
the
fluid
to
be
measured.

(
8)
For
carbon
adsorbers,
record
the
total
regeneration
stream
mass
or
volumetric
flow
during
each
carbon
bed
regeneration
cycle
during
the
period
of
the
compliance
demonstration.
Record
the
temperature
of
the
carbon
bed
after
each
carbon
bed
regeneration
cycle
during
the
period
of
the
compliance
demonstration
(
and
within
15
minutes
of
completion
of
any
cooling
cycle(
s)).
Record
the
operating
time
since
the
end
of
the
last
carbon
bed
regeneration
cycle
and
the
beginning
of
the
next
carbon
bed
regeneration
cycle
during
the
period
of
the
compliance
demonstration.
Locate
the
temperature
and
flow
sensors
in
positions
that
provide
representative
measurement
of
these
parameters.

(
9)
For
oil
absorbers,
record
the
flow
of
absorption
liquid
through
the
absorber,
the
temperatures
of
the
absorption
liquid
before
and
after
the
steam
stripper,
and
the
steam
flow
through
the
steam
stripper
averaged
during
the
same
period
of
the
compliance
demonstration.
Locate
the
temperature
and
flow
sensors
in
positions
that
provide
50
representative
measurement
of
these
parameters.

*
*
*
*
*

5.
Section
63.5545
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.5545
What
are
my
monitoring
installation,
operation,

and
maintenance
requirements?

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
*
*
*

(
4)
The
CEMS
data
must
be
reduced
to
operating
data
averages
computed
using
valid
data
from
at
least
75
percent
of
the
hours
during
the
averaging
period.
To
have
a
valid
hour
of
data,
you
must
have
four
or
more
data
points
equally
spaced
over
the
1­
hour
period
(
or
at
least
two
data
points
during
an
hour
when
calibration,
quality
assurance,
or
maintenance
activities
are
being
performed),
except
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
e)(
5)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

6.
Section
63.5610
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.5610
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

(
a)
For
all
affected
sources
complying
with
the
batch
process
vent
testing
provisions
in
§
63.490(
c)
and
the
operating
limit
provisions
in
§
63.505(
c),
the
terms
used
in
this
subpart
and
in
subpart
U
of
this
part
are
defined
in
§
63.482
and
paragraph
(
g)
of
this
section.
51
*
*
*
*
*

(
g)
*
*
*

Cellophane
process
unit
means
all
equipment
associated
with
the
viscose
process
or
solvent
coating
process
which
collectively
function
to
manufacture
cellophane
and
any
associated
storage
vessels,
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
(
as
defined
in
§
63.149),
and
equipment
(
as
defined
in
§
63.161)
that
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
of
cellophane.

*
*
*
*
*

Cellulose
ether
process
unit
means
all
equipment
associated
with
a
cellulose
ether
process
which
collectively
function
to
manufacture
a
particular
cellulose
ether
and
any
associated
storage
vessels,
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
(
as
defined
in
§
63.149),
and
equipment
(
as
defined
in
§
63.161
or
63.1020)
that
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
of
a
particular
cellulose
ether.

Cellulose
Ethers
Production
source
category
means
the
collection
of
cellulose
ether
operations
that
use
the
cellulose
ether
process
to
manufacture
a
particular
cellulose
ether.

*
*
*
*
*

Cellulose
food
casing
process
unit
means
all
equipment
associated
with
the
viscose
process
which
collectively
function
to
manufacture
cellulose
food
casings
and
any
associated
storage
vessels,
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
52
(
as
defined
in
§
63.149),
and
equipment
(
as
defined
in
§
63.161)
that
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
of
cellulose
food
casings.

*
*
*
*
*

Cellulosic
sponge
process
unit
means
all
equipment
associated
with
the
viscose
process
which
collectively
function
to
manufacture
cellulosic
sponges
and
any
associated
storage
vessels,
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
(
as
defined
in
§
63.149),
and
equipment
(
as
defined
in
§
63.161)
that
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
of
cellulosic
sponges.

*
*
*
*
*

Miscellaneous
Viscose
Processes
source
category
means
the
collection
of
cellulose
food
casing,
rayon,
cellulosic
sponge,
and
cellophane
operations
that
use
the
viscose
process
to
manufacture
a
particular
cellulose
product.

These
cellulose
products
include
cellulose
food
casings,

rayon,
cellulosic
sponges,
and
cellophane.

*
*
*
*
*

Process
vent
means
a
point
of
discharge
to
the
atmosphere
(
or
the
point
of
entry
into
a
control
device,
if
any)
of
a
HAP­
containing
gas
stream
from
the
unit
operation.

Process
vents
do
not
include
vents
with
a
flow
rate
less
than
0.005
standard
cubic
meter
per
minute
or
with
a
concentration
less
than
50
parts
per
million
by
volume
53
(
ppmv)
of
HAP
or
TOC,
vents
on
storage
tanks,
vents
on
wastewater
emission
sources,
or
pieces
of
equipment
regulated
under
equipment
leak
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

Rayon
process
unit
means
all
equipment
associated
with
the
viscose
process
which
collectively
function
to
manufacture
rayon
and
any
associated
storage
vessels,
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
(
as
defined
in
§
63.149),
and
equipment
(
as
defined
in
§
63.161)
that
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
of
rayon.

*
*
*
*
*

7.
Table
1
is
amended
by
revising
items
1.
c.
i
and
ii,

1.
f.
ii
and
iii,
and
9
through
11
to
read
as
follows:

TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5505(
a),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
in
the
following
table]

For
.
.
.
at
.
.
.
you
must
.
.
.

1.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
54
c.
*
*
*
i.
reduce
total
uncontrolled
sulfide
emissions
(
reported
as
carbon
disulfide)
by
at
least
35%
within
3
years
after
the
effective
date
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closedvent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems;
and
ii.
reduce
total
uncontrolled
sulfide
emissions
(
reported
as
carbon
disulfide)
by
at
least
40%
within
8
years
after
the
effective
date
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closedvent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems.

*
*
*
*
*
*
55
f.
*
*
*
*
*
*
ii.
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation),
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation).

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

9.
liquid
streams
in
open
systems
*
*
*
*
*
*

10.
*
*
*
each
existing
or
new
affected
source
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation)
*
*
*

11.
*
*
*
a.
each
existing
or
new
affected
source
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation)
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

8.
Table
2
is
amended
by
revising
items
3
and
4
to
56
read
as
follows:

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5505(
b),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
operating
limits
in
the
following
table]

For
the
following
control
technique
.
.
.
you
must
.
.
.

*
*
*
*
*
*

3.
*
*
*
maintain
the
daily
average
scrubber
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.

4.
*
*
*
maintain
the
daily
average
scrubber
pressure
drop,
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate,
and
scrubber
liquid
pH,
conductivity,
or
alkalinity
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

9.
Table
3
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
the
introductory
statement;

b.
Revising
items
1.
a.
i.(
1)
and
(
2),
1.
b.
i.(
1)
and
(
2),
1.
c.
i.(
1),
1.
c.
ii.(
1),
1.
d.
i.(
1),
1.
e.
i.(
1),
1.
f.
i.(
1),

and
1.
f.
ii
and
iii;

c.
Revising
items
2.
a.
i
and
2.
a.
i.(
1);

d.
Revising
item
3.
a
and
adding
item
3.
b;

e.
Revising
item
6.
a.
i.(
1);
and
f.
Revising
item
12.
a.
i.(
2).

The
revisions
and
addition
read
as
follows:
57
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITS
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5530(
a)
and
63.5535(
g)
and
(
h),
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
appropriate
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
according
to
the
requirements
in
the
following
table]

For
.
.
.
at
.
.
.
for
the
following
emission
limit
or
work
practice
standard
.
.
.
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

1.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
25%;
(
2)
you
have
a
record
of
the
range
of
operating
parameter
values
over
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
during
which
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions
were
reduced
by
at
least
25%;
*
*
*
58
b.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
75%;
(
2)
you
have
a
record
of
the
range
of
operating
parameter
values
over
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
during
which
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions
were
reduced
by
at
least
75%;
*
*
*

c.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
35%
within
3
years
after
the
effective
date;
*
*
*
59
ii.
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
40%
within
8
years
after
the
effective
date;
*
*
*

d.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
75%;
*
*
*

e.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
75%;
*
*
*
60
f.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
ii.
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation),
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation)
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
total
sulfide
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
75%;
*
*
*

2.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
reduce
uncontrolled
toluene
emissions
by
at
least
95%
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
toluene
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
95%;
*
*
*
61
3.
*
*
*
a.
each
existing
or
new
cellulose
ether
operation
using
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance;
or
i.
*
*
*
ii.
*
*
*
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems;
or
(
1)
average
uncontrolled
total
organic
HAP
emissions,
measured
during
the
performance
test
or
determined
using
engineering
estimates
are
reduced
by
at
least
99%;
(
2)
you
have
a
record
of
the
average
operating
parameter
values
over
the
performance
test
during
which
the
average
uncontrolled
total
organic
HAP
emissions
were
reduced
by
at
least
99%;
and
(
3)
you
comply
with
the
initial
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems;
or
62
b.
each
existing
or
new
cellulose
ether
operation
using
a
material
balance
compliance
demonstratio
n
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
i.
reduce
total
uncontrolled
organic
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
99%
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
ii.
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems.
(
1)
average
uncontrolled
total
organic
HAP
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
estimates
are
reduced
by
at
least
99%;
(
2)
you
have
a
record
of
the
average
operating
parameter
values
over
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
during
which
the
average
uncontrolled
total
organic
HAP
emissions
were
reduced
by
at
least
99%;
(
3)
you
prepare
a
material
balance
that
includes
the
pertinent
data
used
to
determine
the
percent
reduction
of
total
organic
HAP
emissions;
(
4)
if
you
use
extended
cookout
to
comply,
you
measure
the
HAP
charged
to
the
reactor,
record
the
grade
of
product
produced,
and
then
calculate
reactor
emissions
prior
to
extended
cookout
by
taking
a
percentage
of
the
total
HAP
charged,
with
the
percentage
63
6.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
the
average
uncontrolled
toluene
emissions,
determined
during
the
month­
long
compliance
demonstration
or
using
engineering
assessments,
are
reduced
by
at
least
95%;
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

12.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
2)
if
your
heat
exchanger
system
is
not
exempt,
you
identify
in
your
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
Report
the
HAP
or
other
representative
substance
that
you
will
monitor,
or
you
prepare
and
maintain
a
sitespecific
plan
containing
the
information
required
by
§
63.104(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
iv)
that
documents
the
procedures
you
will
use
to
detect
leaks
by
monitoring
surrogate
indicators
of
the
leak.

*
*
*
*
*

10.
Table
4
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
statement
and
items
3
and
4.
a.
i.(
2).(
b)
to
read
as
follows:
64
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5530(
b)
and
63.5535(
a),
(
b),
(
g)(
1),
and
(
h)(
1),
you
must
conduct
performance
tests,
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations,
and
CEMS
performance
evaluations
and
establish
operating
limits
according
to
the
requirements
in
the
following
table]

For
.
.
.
at
.
.
.
you
must
.
.
.
using
.
.
.
according
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
65
3.
the
sum
of
all
solvent
coating
process
vents
a.
each
existin
g
or
new
celloph
ane
operati
on
i.
measure
toluene
emission
s
(
1)
EPA
Method
18
in
appendi
x
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter
;
or
(
a)
you
must
conduct
testing
of
emissions
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
each
control
device;
(
b)
you
may
use
EPA
Method
18
to
determine
the
control
efficiency
of
any
control
device
for
organic
compounds;
for
a
combustion
device,
you
must
use
only
HAP
that
are
present
in
the
inlet
to
the
control
device
to
characterize
the
percent
reduction
across
the
combustion
device;
(
c)
you
must
conduct
testing
of
emissions
from
continuous
solvent
coating
process
vents
and
combinations
of
batch
and
continuous
solvent
coating
process
vents
at
normal
operating
conditions,
as
specified
in
§
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
63.5535;
(
d)
you
must
conduct
testing
of
emissions
from
batch
solvent
coating
process
vents
as
specified
in
§
63.490(
c),
except
that
the
emission
reductions
66
*
*
*
*
*
*

4.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
67
(
2)
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
you
may
use
ASTM
D6420­
99
(
available
for
purchase
from
at
least
one
of
the
following
addresses:
100
Barr
Harbor
Drive,
West
Conshohocken,
PA
19428­
2959;
or
University
Microfilms
International,
300
North
Zeeb
Road,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48106)
as
an
alternative
to
EPA
Method
18
only
where:
the
target
compound(
s)
are
those
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420­
99;
and
the
target
concentration
is
between
150
ppbv
and
100
ppmv;
for
target
compound(
s)
not
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420­
99,
but
potentially
detected
by
mass
spectrometry,
the
additional
system
continuing
calibration
check
after
each
run,
as
detailed
in
Section
10.5.3
of
the
ASTM
method,
must
be
followed,
met,
documented,
and
submitted
with
the
data
report
even
if
there
is
no
moisture
condenser
68
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

11.
Table
5
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
items
1.
a.
ii
and
iii;

b.
Revising
item
3.
a
and
adding
item
3.
b;

c.
Revising
items
5.
a.
i,
ii,
and
iv;
and
d.
Revising
item
8.

The
revisions
and
addition
read
as
follows:

TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITS
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5555(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
appropriate
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
according
to
the
requirements
in
the
following
table]

For
.
.
.
at
.
.
.
for
the
following
emission
limit
or
work
practice
standard
.
.
.
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.
69
1.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
*
*
*
ii.
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation),
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closedvent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems
(
except
for
retractable
hoods
over
sulfuric
acid
baths
at
a
cellophane
operation).
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

3.
*
*
*
a.
each
existing
or
new
cellulose
ether
operation
using
a
performanc
e
test
to
demonstrat
e
initial
compliance
;
or
i.
*
*
*
ii.
*
*
*
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems;
or
(
1)
complying
with
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems;
or
70
b.
each
existing
or
new
cellulose
ether
operation
using
a
material
balance
compliance
demonstrat
ion
to
demonstrat
e
initial
compliance
.
i.
reduce
total
uncontrolled
organic
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
99%
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
ii.
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
iii.
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems.
(
1)
maintaining
a
material
balance
that
includes
the
pertinent
data
used
to
determine
the
percent
reduction
of
total
organic
HAP
emissions;
(
2)
documenting
the
percent
reduction
of
total
organic
HAP
emissions
using
the
pertinent
data
from
the
material
balance;
(
3)
if
using
extended
cookout
to
comply,
monitoring
reactor
charges
and
keeping
records
to
show
that
extended
cookout
was
employed;
and
(
4)
complying
with
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
71
5.
*
*
*
a.
*
*
*
i.
reduce
uncontrolled
carbon
disulfide
emissions
by
at
least
83%
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average
if
you
use
an
alternative
control
technique
not
listed
in
this
table
for
carbon
disulfide
unloading
and
storage
operations;
if
using
a
control
device
to
reduce
emissions,
route
emissions
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems;
(
1)
keeping
a
record
documenting
the
83%
reduction
in
carbon
disulfide
emissions;
and
(
2)
if
venting
to
a
control
device
to
reduce
emissions,
complying
with
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems;
72
ii.
reduce
total
uncontrolled
sulfide
emissions
by
at
least
0.14%
from
viscose
process
vents
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems;
(
1)
maintaining
a
material
balance
that
includes
the
pertinent
data
used
to
determine
the
percent
reduction
of
total
sulfide
emissions;
(
2)
documenting
the
percent
reduction
of
total
sulfide
emissions
using
the
pertinent
data
from
the
material
balance;
and
(
3)
complying
with
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems;

*
*
*
*
*
*
73
iv.
install
a
nitrogen
unloading
system;
reduce
total
uncontrolled
sulfide
emissions
by
at
least
0.045%
from
viscose
process
vents
based
on
a
6­
month
rolling
average;
for
each
vent
stream
that
you
control
using
a
control
device,
route
the
vent
stream
through
a
closed­
vent
system
to
the
control
device;
and
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
closed­
vent
systems
(
1)
keeping
a
record
certifying
that
a
nitrogen
unloading
system
is
in
use;
(
2)
maintaining
a
material
balance
that
includes
the
pertinent
data
used
to
determine
the
percent
reduction
of
total
sulfide
emissions;
(
3)
documenting
the
percent
reduction
of
total
sulfide
emissions
using
the
pertinent
data
from
the
material
balance;
and
(
4)
complying
with
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
closed­
vent
systems.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

8.
all
sources
of
wastewater
emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

12.
Table
6
is
amended
by
revising
items
3
and
4
to
read
as
follows:

TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
UUUU
OF
PART
63.
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
OPERATING
LIMITS
74
[
As
required
in
§
63.5555(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
appropriate
operating
limits
according
to
the
requirements
in
the
following
table]

For
the
following
control
technique
.
.
.
for
the
following
operating
limit
.
.
.
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

3.
*
*
*
maintain
the
daily
average
scrubber
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.
collecting
the
scrubber
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
data
according
to
§
63.5545;
reducing
the
scrubber
parameter
data
to
daily
averages;
and
maintaining
the
daily
scrubber
parameter
values
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.
75
4.
*
*
*
maintain
the
daily
average
scrubber
pressure
drop,
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate,
and
scrubber
liquid
pH,
conductivity,
or
alkalinity
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.
collecting
the
scrubber
pressure
drop,
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate,
and
scrubber
liquid
pH,
conductivity,
or
alkalinity
data
according
to
§
63.5545;
reducing
the
scrubber
parameter
data
to
daily
averages;
and
maintaining
the
daily
scrubber
parameter
values
within
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
compliance
demonstration.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*