[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48174-48195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23083]
[[Page 48173]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrocholoric
Acid Production; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48174]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7057-1]
RIN 2060-AH75
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Hydrochloric Acid Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid (HCl) production
facilities, including HCl production at fume silica facilities. The EPA
has identified these facilities as major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions, primarily HCl. Hydrochloric acid is
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse
health effects include chronic health disorders (for example, effects
on the central nervous system, blood, and heart) and acute health
disorders (for example, irritation of eyes, throat, and mucous
membranes and damage to the liver and kidneys).
These proposed NESHAP would implement section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) by requiring all HCl production facilities that are major
sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The EPA estimates
that these proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAP
from HCl production by approximately 1,620 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr)
(1,790 tons per year (tpy)). The emissions reductions achieved by these
proposed NESHAP, when combined with the emissions reductions achieved
by other similar standards, would provide protection to the public and
achieve a primary goal of the CAA.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before November 19, 2001.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by October 9, 2001, a public hearing will be held on
October 18, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-41, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-99-41, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10:00 a.m. in EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-41 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Maxwell, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number
(919) 541-5430; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail
address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Comments
submitted by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use
of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note
the docket number: A-99-41. No confidential business information (CBI)
should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online
at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Bill Maxwell, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The
EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. A request for a public hearing must be made by the
date specified under the DATES section. People interested in presenting
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held
should contact: Ms. Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards
Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5578 at
least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. People interested in
attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Hayes 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.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered in the development of this proposed rule. The
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The
regulatory text and other materials related to this proposed rule are
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. Additional related information may
also be found on the Air Toxics Website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
[[Page 48175]]
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC \a\ NAICS \b\ Regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 2819 325188 Hydrochloric Acid Production.
2821 325211
2869 325199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine
the applicability criteria in section Sec. 63.8985 of the proposed
NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects associated with HCl emissions?
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. What is the source category?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What are the emission limitations and work practice
standards?
E. What are the performance testing, initial compliance, and
continuous compliance requirements?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we select the form of the standards?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for existing and new sources?
E. How did we select the testing, and initial and continuous
compliance requirements?
F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts.
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
C. What are the cost and economic impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC
601 et. seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Hydrochloric
acid production and fume silica production were listed as source
categories under the production of inorganic chemicals group on EPA's
initial list of major source categories published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).\1\ Today, we are combining
these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the
production of inorganic chemicals group and renaming the source
category as HCl production. The next revision to the source category
list will reflect this change. Major sources of HAP are those that have
the potential to emit greater than 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or
23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Later listing notices (e.g., 66 FR 8220) refer to the source
category as ``fumed'' silica.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum level allowed for NESHAP and is
defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor
ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major
sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which we have emissions information) in the category or
subcategory or by the best-performing 5 sources (for which we have or
could reasonably obtain emissions information) for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, non-air quality health and environmental impacts,
and energy impacts.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HCl Emissions?
The primary HAP emitted from HCl production is HCl. Chlorine gas is
also emitted. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each
of the facilities covered by the emissions standards for this source
category, nor for the people living around the facilities, that would
be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population
exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for
resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which
the adverse health effects described below occur in the populations
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse
effects do occur, the proposed rule will
[[Page 48176]]
reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
A discussion of the HAP-specific health effects is discussed below.
1. Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous
membranes. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose,
and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema
in humans. Chronic (long-term) occupational exposure to HCl has been
reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers.
Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental
discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the
reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed
to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in
females and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have
been reported in offspring. We have not classified HCl for
carcinogenicity.
2. Chlorine
Acute exposure to high levels of chlorine in humans can result in
chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. At lower
levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the eyes, the upper
respiratory tract, and lungs. Chronic exposure to chlorine gas in
workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and throat
irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have reported
decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, nonneoplastic
nasal lesions, and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia from chronic
inhalation exposure to chlorine. No information is available on the
carcinogenic effects of chlorine in humans from inhalation exposure. We
have not classified chlorine for potential carcinogenicity.
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. What Is the Source Category?
The HCl production source category and the fume silica source
category include HCl production facilities that are, or are part of, a
major source of HAP emissions. The proposed rule defines an HCl
production facility as the collection of equipment used to produce,
store, and transfer for shipping HCl at a concentration of 10 percent
by weight or greater. In other words, an HCl production facility is any
process that routes a gaseous stream that contains HCl to an absorber,
thereby creating a liquid HCl product. As noted above, to be covered by
the proposed rule, the concentration of HCl in the liquid aqueous
product must be 10 percent or greater, by weight.
There are numerous types of processes that produce the HCl-
containing stream that is the starting point for an HCl facility. These
include organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing processes that
produce HCl as a by-product; the reaction of salts and sulfuric acid
(Mannheim process); the reaction of a salt, sulfur dioxide, oxygen, and
water (Hargreaves process); the combustion of chlorinated organic
compounds; the direct synthesis of HCl via the burning of chlorine in
the presence of hydrogen; and fume silica production, including the
combustion of silicon tetrachloride in hydrogen-oxygen furnaces. The
proposed rule is ``blind'' to the type of process that generates the
HCl, as an HCl production facility begins at the point where the HCl-
containing stream enters the absorber. For this reason, we decided to
combine fume silica HCl production with other HCl production facilities
and regulate both under this NESHAP.
The proposed rule excludes HCl production facilities under certain
circumstances. First, even if 10-percent HCl (or greater) is produced,
an HCl production facility is not subject to the proposed rule if all
of the HCl and chlorine vent streams from the equipment (including
absorbers, storage tanks and transfer operations) at the HCl production
facility are recycled or routed to another process prior to being
discharged to the atmosphere.
In addition, the proposed rule excludes certain HCl production
facilities that are part of other source categories. Only around 5
percent of HCl is produced via a process where HCl is the primary
intended product. Most HCl is produced as a by-product of other
processes. Some of these processes are, or will be, subject to other
Federal air pollution standards. For example, some operations produce
liquid HCl following the incineration of chlorinated waste gas streams.
If these operations are subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
requirements for HCl control after an incinerator that is used as a
control device for halogenated group 1 process vents, that source is
exempt from the proposed HCl NESHAP. The proposed NESHAP also excludes
HCl production facilities when the operations that produce HCl are part
of an affected source of another part 63 standard (e.g., the Steel
Pickling NESHAP). For a more detailed discussion of these exclusions
and how the proposed source category was selected, see section III.A of
this preamble.
B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary HAP known to be released from HCl production is HCl.
Chlorine may also be emitted from HCl production. While HCl is produced
through many different types of processes (discussed above), potential
HCl and chlorine emission sources are essentially the same for all
processes. These potential emission sources include process vents,
storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and wastewater.
1. Types of Emission Sources
Most HCl production processes begin with a gaseous stream
containing HCl. The stream can be a by-product stream from another
process, an outlet stream from a combustion device that is treating
chlorinated organic compounds, or a stream from a direct synthesis
reaction furnace where hydrogen and chlorine are burned. No matter the
origin of the HCl-containing stream, the process from that point
forward is basically the same. The gaseous HCl-containing stream is
routed to an HCl recovery absorption column, where the HCl is absorbed
into either water or dilute HCl. The liquid leaving this column
contains concentrated HCl.
The gaseous stream leaving the absorption column contains HCl that
was not absorbed into the liquid in the tower and any chlorine present
in the inlet stream. This outlet stream may be routed (or recycled) to
another process, in which case it is no longer part of the HCl
production affected source. However, if the outlet stream is directly
discharged to the atmosphere or it is routed through other recovery/
control devices before being discharged to the atmosphere, it is
considered a process vent from an HCl production process.
If the liquid HCl leaving the absorption tower is routed to a
storage tank, there is the potential for HCl emissions from the tank.
The storage tanks are typically atmospheric storage tanks, and working
loss emissions will occur as the tank is filled and emptied. While less
significant, there are also breathing losses from atmospheric
temperature and pressure changes. There is also the potential for
emissions when HCl is loaded from a storage tank to a tank truck or
rail car. Plants often reduce HCl emissions from storage tanks and
transfer operations by using a scrubber.
Another potential source of HCl emissions is fugitive losses from
equipment leaks. However, owners and operators of HCl production
processes presumably have an incentive to
[[Page 48177]]
identify and repair equipment leaks of HCl and chlorine because of
their highly corrosive nature. The leaks can be easily identified, as
the presence of ambient moisture (humidity) results in rapid corrosion
on or around leaking equipment components.
The bottoms from scrubbers used to reduce HCl and chlorine
emissions from process vents, storage vessels, and transfer operations
are typically routed to wastewater treatment systems. In most cases,
the HCl or chlorine has been chemically converted in the scrubber to
sodium hypochlorite (bleach). Any residual chlorine or HCl would be
quite small. We estimate that wastewater emissions represent less than
1 percent of total emissions from the source category. Therefore, we
believe that wastewater streams do not represent a significant
potential source of emissions.
2. Estimated Emissions
We have calculated the nationwide baseline emissions for each of
the HCl production facility emission sources. Process vents emit a
total of 2,810 Mg/yr (3,100 tpy) of combined HCl and chlorine
emissions. Storage tanks emit 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) of HCl, transfer
operations emit 16 Mg/yr (17 tpy) of HCl, leaking equipment emits 240
Mg/yr (270 tpy) of HCl, and wastewater emits 11 Mg/yr (13 tpy) HCl.
Total baseline emissions from the industry are 3,130 Mg/yr (3,450 tpy).
C. What Is the Affected Source?
The proposed rule defines the HCl production facility as the
affected source. The affected source contains the five emission points
described in the previous section: process vents, storage tanks,
transfer operations, leaking equipment, and wastewater treatment
operations. However, as described in section III.D of this preamble,
there are no emission limitations or other requirements for wastewater
treatment operations in the proposed rule.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?
We are proposing that new and existing affected sources maintain an
outlet concentration of less than or equal to 12 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) HCl and 20 ppmv chlorine from each process vent,
determined using EPA Test Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The
proposed rule also would require that owners or operators establish
site-specific operating limits for the final control device, based on
monitored parameters and levels established during the performance
test. For example, if you use a caustic scrubber to meet the emission
limits, you must maintain the daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow
rate above the minimum value established during the performance test.
You also must maintain the daily average scrubber effluent pH within
the operating range value established during the performance test.
For each storage tank and transfer operation at a new or existing
affected source, the HCl emission limit (an outlet concentration of 12
ppmv or less) and operating limits are the same as for process vents.
There are no chlorine emissions from these sources.
For leaking equipment, we are proposing a work practice standard.
We would require you to prepare, and at all times operate according to,
an equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan that describes in
detail the measures that will be put in place to control leaking
equipment emissions at the facility. You would be required to submit
the plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the
compliance date.
We are not proposing any emission limitations or work practice
standards for wastewater treatment, for the reasons discussed in
section III(D)(5) of this preamble.
E. What Are the Performance Testing, Initial Compliance, and Continuous
Compliance Requirements?
For process vents at new and existing affected sources, we are
proposing to require that you demonstrate initial compliance by
conducting a performance test that demonstrates that emissions are at
an outlet concentration of less than or equal to 12 ppmv HCl and 20
ppmv chlorine. You must also establish site-specific operating limits
based on control device parameters. These operating limits would be
established for each parameter based on monitoring conducted during the
initial performance test when the outlet concentration of both
pollutants is less than or equal to the required emission limits (as
reported in the facility's Notification of Compliance Status report).
Specifically for water or caustic scrubbers, which we believe will
be the control device of choice in most situations, the proposed rule
would require that you establish operating limits for pH of the
scrubber effluent and the scrubber liquid inlet flow rate. For any
other type of control device, you would be required to establish the
operating limits based on an approved monitoring plan that identifies
appropriate parameters. Continuous compliance would be demonstrated by
these monitored parameters staying within the operating limits.
The HCl emission limit and associated operating limits for new and
existing storage tanks and transfer operations are the same as those
for process vents.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are proposing to require owners or operators of affected sources
to submit the following notification and reports:
Initial Notification.
Notification of Intent to Conduct a Performance Test.
Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS).
Compliance Reports.
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.
We would require that each owner or operator maintain records of
reported information and other information necessary to document
compliance (for example, records related to malfunctions, records that
show continuous compliance with emission limits) for 5 years.
For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that each owner or
operator notify us that his or her facility is subject to the HCl
production NESHAP and that he or she provide specified basic
information about their facility. This notification would be required
to be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the facility
becomes subject to this subpart. For existing sources that are
operating at this time, the Initial Notification would be due [120 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
For the Notification of Intent report, we are proposing that each
owner or operator notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60 days before the performance test is
scheduled to begin.
For each new or existing process vent, storage tank, and transfer
operation at an affected source, we are proposing to require a
performance test to demonstrate compliance with proposed HCl
concentration limit. This test would be conducted by the compliance
date for existing sources and within 180 days of the compliance date
for new or reconstructed sources. We are proposing that the NOCS report
be submitted within 60 days of completion of the performance test. A
certified notification of compliance that states the compliance status
of the facility, along with supporting information (e.g., performance
test methods and results, description of air pollution control
equipment, and operating parameter
[[Page 48178]]
values and ranges), would be submitted as part of the NOCS.
For the Compliance Report, we are proposing that facilities subject
to control requirements under the proposed rule report on continued
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits semi-annually.
Specifically, the compliance report must contain the following
information:
Company name and address.
Statement certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
Information on actions taken for any startups, shutdowns,
or malfunctions that were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
If there were no periods during which the continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) was out-of-control, as specified in
the monitoring plan, a statement that there were no periods during
which the continuous monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control during
the reporting period.
You will demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice
standards for leaking equipment by demonstrating that you have a LDAR
plan. Your semiannual compliance report will verify your continued use
of the plan and contain information on instances where you deviated
from the plan and the corrective actions taken.
Finally, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report if you have taken an action that is not consistent
with the facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. This
report must describe actions taken for the event and contain the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category?
The HCl production source category and the fume silica source
category were both on our initial list of major source categories
published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The
HCl production source category description in the initial listing
included any facility engaged in the production of HCl. The listing
document further stated that ``the category includes, but is not
limited to, production of HCl via any of the following methods:
production of HCl as a by-product in the manufacture of organic
chemicals, direct reaction of salts and sulfuric acid (Mannheim
process), reaction of a salt, sulfur dioxide, oxygen, and water
(Hargreaves process), and burning chlorine in the presence of hydrogen
gas.''
The fume silica production source category included any facility
engaged in the production of fume silica. Fume silica is a fine white
powder used as a thickener, thixotropic, or reinforcing agent in inks,
resins, rubber, paints, and cosmetics. The initial fume silica source
category included the production of fume silica by the combustion of
silicon tetrachloride in hydrogen-oxygen furnaces. Hydrochloric acid
and chlorine emissions are the primary HAP released from fume silica
production facilities and result from the HCl recovery/production
system. Because the largest HAP emission source at fume silica
facilities is related to the HCl recovery/production system, we decided
to combine fume silica sources and HCl production sources for
regulation under the proposed NESHAP.
We considered whether the source category should be limited to the
production of a liquid HCl product, or if the source category should
also include gaseous HCl streams. The majority of HCl is produced as a
gaseous by-product, rather than being directly synthesized. Some owners
and operators choose to route the HCl-containing stream to an absorber
to make a liquid product, and some do not. Those that do not make a
liquid product may use the gaseous HCl stream by routing it to another
process or by recycling it. They may also route the stream through a
control device and discharge it to the atmosphere. Since, in most
cases, this HCl is not intentionally being produced, and since these
plants are not performing additional steps to process this HCl, we
concluded that these situations do not constitute ``production'' and
should not be included in the source category. Therefore, we limited
the source category to those processes producing a liquid HCl product.
Consequently, the starting point for an HCl production facility is
the HCl-containing gaseous stream from one of the types of processes
listed above. We considered defining the source category in terms of
the processes used to create the gaseous HCl stream. However, the
production of the liquid HCl product in the absorption tower is
relatively consistent for all HCl production, with no regard for the
type of process generating the HCl gaseous stream. We concluded that
the source category did not need to address the process that is the
source of the HCl gaseous stream, only the unit operations that
generate the liquid HCl product from that gaseous stream. In other
words, we considered that the gaseous HCl stream was the feedstock to
the HCl production process and not part of the process. Therefore, the
proposed rule does not consider the type of process that creates the
HCl gaseous stream in defining an HCl production facility.
We also wanted the proposed rule to focus on producers of
``commercial'' HCl and not on incidental producers. We considered
accomplishing this by limiting the scope of the proposed rule to
facilities that offer the liquid HCl product for sale. However, we
rejected this approach because we recognize that this would
artificially separate similar processes based on whether the product is
used on-site (and, thus, not ``sold''), or is offered for sale on the
commercial market. We also considered limiting the source category
based on how the liquid HCl product is used. For instance, we could
have defined an HCl production facility as one that produces HCl used
as a feedstock for another process. However, we determined that it was
not feasible to separate incidental and non-incidental uses in a non-
arbitrary manner.
We then tried to identify a minimum grade (or concentration) of
HCl, above which all the commercial production of HCl would fall. The
most common way to define the grade of HCl appears to be percent HCl by
weight. Common shipping concentrations range from 31.45 to 37 percent
by weight, which we believe also probably represents common
manufacturing concentrations of HCl sold in commerce. The available
literature indicates that the vast majority of HCl is produced at or
above the azeotropic concentration of 20 percent by weight, but any
concentration of HCl can be produced depending on how the absorber is
operated. The lowest documented concentration is 10 percent by weight,
which is that typically produced by the Hargreaves process. However,
our information in this area is limited, and there may be a market for
a lower concentration product. For example, oil field service companies
use HCl concentrations of 5-27 percent, and literature searches have
revealed material safety data sheets for concentrations as low as 0.7
percent. There was no indication in the literature whether these lower
concentrations were produced directly or by diluting higher
concentration products after manufacture.
[[Page 48179]]
Based on the available information, we are proposing that the HCl
production source category include equipment at facilities used to
produce, store, and transfer for shipping liquid HCl product at a
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater. We believe that the
definition would include all of the HCl producers in the U.S. and
exclude incidental production of HCl. We are requesting comment on
whether concentration by weight is the most appropriate method for
defining the grade of HCl. We are also requesting comment on whether a
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater is an appropriate
cutoff to include commercial HCl production in the U.S. and exclude
incidental production.
We also considered whether some HCl production facilities that meet
the definition should be excluded from the HCl production source
category. First, we are aware that a facility could produce a liquid
HCl product, but not have any emission points that discharge to the
atmosphere. An example would be a process that recycles the vent from
the absorber and that routes the liquid directly to another process. We
believe that such processes should not be subject to the rule, so the
proposed rule excludes them from the source category.
It is possible that the process from which the gaseous HCl stream
originates will be subject to another MACT standard, and that the HCl
and other HAP emissions from that stream would be subject to control
requirements under that standard. We want to avoid overlapping
requirements where possible, and have specifically excluded from the
HCl production source category those operations that produce HCl that
are also part of an affected source under one of the following
subparts:
40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production.
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
The Pharmaceuticals Production MACT (40 CFR 63, subpart GGG) is
another source category where potential overlap could occur since
chlorinated compounds are used, and the rule covers all HAP emissions,
including HCl and chlorine. However, we are not aware of processes at a
pharmaceutical production facility that produce a liquid HCl product of
concentrations of 10 percent or greater. Therefore, the proposed rule
does not exempt sources subject to subpart GGG. We would be interested
in comments on any actual situations where overlap between the
pharmaceutical rule and the proposed HCl rule occur.
There is also the potential for regulatory overlap when the
operations that produce liquid HCl occur following the incineration of
chlorinated waste gas streams, and the operations are subject to one of
the following requirements:
40 CFR part 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.
40 CFR part 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, subpart
O, Incinerators.
40 CFR Part 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
For example, producers of synthetic organic chemicals are subject
to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, or HON. At a HON facility, HCl is
created when chlorinated organic compounds from a HON process unit are
combusted in an incinerator. The HON requires that the HCl emissions
from the incinerator be reduced by 99 percent. If an owner or operator
routes the incinerator outlet stream to an absorber and produces a
liquid HCl product, it would be considered part of the system that
achieves the required 99-percent reduction. Since the HCl production
process and the HCl emissions would be covered by the HON, we would
want to exclude such a process from the HCl production source category.
Therefore, the proposed rule specifically excludes processes subject to
Sec. 63.113(c) of subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
Some HON units produce HCl as a by-product (not as a result of the
combustion of chlorinated organic compounds). While the HCl production
process would be part of the HON affected source, the HCl emissions
from these operations are not covered by the HON. Therefore, a process
that produces a liquid HCl product (in concentrations equal to or
greater than 10 percent by weight) in this situation would be included
in the proposed HCl source category definition.
We know of three other situations that could result in regulatory
overlap: MACT standards for chlorine production, primary magnesium
refining, and the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Production and
Processes MACT, or the MON. However, these rules are still in the
developmental stages, and we cannot determine whether there is actually
an overlap. Depending on the outcome of the chlorine production,
primary magnesium refining, and MON rulemaking efforts, we would
consider exempting overlapping affected sources when we finalize the
HCl production rule, if the other rules are also promulgated by then.
Alternatively, we would consider revising the final HCl production rule
after the other rules are promulgated if we determine there is a need
to exempt the resulting overlapping affected sources.
B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
For the purposes of implementing a NESHAP, an affected source is
defined to mean the stationary source, or portion of a stationary
source, that is regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement
established under section 112 of the CAA. In other words, the affected
source specifies the group of unit operations, equipment, and emission
points that are subject to the proposed rule. Under each relevant
standard, we must designate the ``affected source'' for the purpose of
implementing that standard. We do this for each source category (or
subcategory) by deciding which HAP emission sources (i.e., emission
points or groupings of emission points) are most appropriate for
establishing separate emission standards or work practices in the
context of the CAA statutory requirements and the industry operating
practices for the particular source category.
We can define the affected source as narrowly as a single item of
equipment or as broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used
to produce the product that defines the source category. The affected
source also defines the collection of equipment that would be evaluated
to determine whether replacement of components at an existing affected
source would qualify as reconstruction. If we define the affected
source narrowly, it could affect whether some parts of a process unit
would be subject to new source requirements and others subject to
existing source requirements.
We decided to treat each collection of all connected equipment that
is used to produce, store, and transfer HCl (in concentrations equal to
or greater than 10 percent by weight) at a plant site as
[[Page 48180]]
a single affected source. While we could have created separate affected
sources for the equipment associated with each type of emission source
(that is process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, etc.), we
believe that the operations are inter-related to the extent that any
such separation would be problematic for owners and operators and for
regulators. We believe a broad affected source is more feasible because
all of the emission sources for which we are proposing emission limits
(process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations) can be
controlled with a single control device.
As discussed in section III.d of this preamble, we are not
proposing emission limits or work practice standards for wastewater
streams. However, we decided to include wastewater streams in the
affected source to eliminate the confusion of how these emission
streams should be considered under future site-specific MACT
determinations or other rulemakings. For instance, including all of the
HCl production facility emission streams in the affected source will
ensure that they will be considered together under future site-specific
MACT determinations.
C. How Did We Select the Form of the Standards?
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that standards be specified as a
numerical emission standard, whenever possible. However, if it is
determined that ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or
pollutants,'' section 112(h) indicates that a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard may be specified. As with any
standard, the MACT floor may be expressed several different ways. If an
emission limit is not possible, the decision as to which format to use
depends on availability of data, burden imposed on industry and
regulatory agencies, and whether the format is verifiable and
replicable.
An emission limit format is feasible for process vents, transfer
operations, and storage tanks and could take the form of mass of
pollutant emitted per some other normalizing factor, such as time or a
measure of production. Time is almost never used because it does not
take into account different production processes and production rates
from one source to another. Similarly, normalizing on a measure of
production does not take into account different production processes
that emit pollutants at different rates.
It is also unclear what basis was used for reporting the amount of
HCl produced in the available data, which is presently based on State
permit applications. A common practice in this industry (although not
followed by all facilities) is to report production and shipping
quantities on the basis of 100 percent HCl; however, there was no
indication in the permit application data whether the reported amount
produced was the actual quantity or whether it was normalized to a 100-
percent basis. Since this would have a profound effect on the emission
factors, it was not possible to develop a normalized emission limit for
using the available data.
We also considered a percent reduction format. However, this format
would make it difficult to determine the reduction from a control
device versus a process. For example, it might be unfair to require a
single reduction level from the last control device before the emission
stream is emitted to the atmosphere, depending on the way the
absorption column is designed.
Based on these considerations, we selected a concentration limit
format for process vents, transfer operations, and storage tanks. This
format is both verifiable and repeatable. Current test methods can
measure outlet concentration directly, and parameter monitoring is an
acceptable means of ensuring continued proper operation and maintenance
of the control device. We believe this format will minimize the burden
on industry and regulatory agencies with minimal risk of allowing
excess emissions.
We expect that all emission streams from HCl production processes
will contain HCl, and process vents may also contain chlorine.
Therefore, we selected an outlet concentration (ppmv) for both
pollutants.
The format for the equipment leak standards are work practices. We
selected this format because it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce
emission standards. Equipment leak emissions cannot be emitted through
a conveyance device, and the application of a measurement technology is
not practicable due to technological or economic limitations.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?
As discussed in section I.B of this preamble, for source
categories/subcategories with greater than 30 sources, MACT for
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which we have emissions information). Further, MACT for
source categories/subcategories with fewer than 30 sources cannot be
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 5 sources (for which we have or could reasonably obtain
emissions information). We have determined that ``average'' means any
measure of central tendency, whether it be the arithmetic mean, median,
or mode, or some other measure based on the best measure decided on for
determining the central tendency of a data set (59 FR 29196).
The MACT floor determination was made based on State permit data
for 26 HCl production facilities for 20 plant sites: Louisiana (18
facilities), West Virginia (3 facilities), Kentucky (1 facility), New
York (1 facility), Ohio (1 facility), and Texas (2 facilities). We also
considered data from 5 other HCl production facilities, which were
obtained from trip reports (i.e., documentation of visits to plants
sites.) We used this information to develop the MACT floor analysis,
presented in the following sections.
The HCl production affected source MACT floor determinations are
based on the performance of add-on control devices or work practice
standards. We could not consider process changes to reduce emissions,
such as using different raw materials, at the floor or beyond-the-floor
because our definition of the HCl production source category is limited
to those processes producing a liquid HCl product (see section III.A of
this preamble for more discussion). Process changes that would minimize
HCl emissions after liquid product production are outside of the source
category to be addressed by the proposed rule. Because fuels used in
HCl production processes do not contribute to the HAP emissions from
this source category, we did not consider fuel switching as an emission
reduction option in the floor determination or in beyond-the-floor
analyses.
1. Process Vents MACT
We have process vent control information for 25 units. Units
equipped with scrubbers have the 5 highest reported control
efficiencies for HCl emissions: 99.4 percent (2), >99 percent (2), and
99 percent. We selected 99.4 percent control efficiency as the median
of the 3 units where actual efficiencies were reported. The scrubbers
with the 5 highest control efficiencies for chlorine emissions are 99.8
percent (2), 99.4 percent, and >99 (2) percent. We selected 99.8
percent as the median of the 3 units where actual control efficiencies
were reported. These
[[Page 48181]]
efficiencies represent the MACT floor for both new and existing
sources.
We have not identified a beyond-the-floor control option for
process vents, because we have insufficient information to determine
whether all types of sources can employ a scrubber and operate it in
such a manner as to achieve >99.4 percent control for HCl (>99.8
percent control for chlorine) on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are
proposing that the MACT floor be used to establish MACT for new and
existing sources.
As described in the format of the standard selection, we believe an
outlet concentration format is needed for the proposed rule. Therefore,
we have selected HCl and chlorine emission limits that correlate with
the MACT level of control. We determined this value based on
performance test data for eight emission points for HCl and three
emission points for chlorine. We obtained or calculated an uncontrolled
outlet emission stream concentration for each of these emission points.
Then we applied the MACT floor percent reduction to all of the
uncontrolled concentrations.
The concentrations associated with the 99.4 percent control HCl
MACT for process vents ranged from 0.03 ppmv to 12.3 ppmv. We selected
the highest value in this range, 12 ppmv, as representing the
concentration that every facility with a control device capable of
meeting the MACT floor percent reduction could meet. Similarly, the
concentrations associated with the 99.8 percent chlorine MACT ranged
from 1.5 ppmv to 19.3 ppmv. We selected 20 ppmv as the concentration
that every facility with a control device capable of meeting the MACT
floor percent reduction could meet.
2. Storage Tanks MACT
We have information on control efficiencies for 18 HCl storage tank
scrubbers. Of these, the 5 highest control efficiencies are 99.9
percent, 99.85 percent, >99 percent, 99 percent, and 98 percent. We
selected 99.4 percent as the median of the 4 units where actual
efficiencies were reported.
Requiring a 99.9 percent control efficiency as a beyond-the-floor
option is theoretically possible, based on the data described above.
However, such a requirement could result in the need for a dedicated
control device for storage tank emissions, in the event the process
vent scrubber could not be modified to achieve the higher control
efficiency. This change would achieve only a minor incremental emission
reduction (less than one ton per year, industry wide) for existing
sources and would result in an incremental cost of approximately
$156,000 per ton of pollutant reduced. Therefore, we do not believe
this is a reasonable beyond-the-floor alternative.
We believe the MACT floor for existing sources is representative of
new sources, because we have insufficient information to determine
whether all types of sources can employ a scrubber and operate it in
such a manner as to achieve a 99.9 percent or greater control on a
consistent basis. Therefore, we are proposing a MACT level of control
that is the same for new and existing sources, based on the MACT floor
analysis. This would allow storage tanks to be vented to the same
scrubbers or other controls used for process vents, thus, conserving
energy and reducing the amount of wastewater generated. In addition,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burdens would be minimized.
These sources would be required to meet the 12 ppmv concentration limit
for HCl.
3. Transfer Operation MACT
We only have information on transfer operation controls from four
units. Of these, 2 report >99 percent control, 1 reports controls but
no associated efficiency, and 1 unit is uncontrolled. We selected >99
percent as the floor value. We have not identified a beyond-the-floor
control option for transfer operations, because we have insufficient
information to determine whether all types of sources can employ a
scrubber and operate it in such a manner as to achieve a higher level
of control on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are proposing that the
MACT floor be used to establish MACT for new and existing sources. We
propose that these sources meet the 12 ppmv concentration limit as
well. This would allow transfer operations to be vented to the same
scrubbers or other controls used for process vents and/or storage
tanks, conserving energy and reducing the amount of wastewater
generated. In addition, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
burdens would be minimized.
4. Leaking Equipment MACT
Because of the corrosive nature of HCl, equipment leaks are readily
apparent, and such leaks have a severe, detrimental effect on
equipment, piping, and structural components of the facility.
Hydrochloric acid production facilities, therefore, have an incentive
to identify and quickly repair equipment leaks because of these
effects. Identification of equipment leaks is typically done simply by
visual observation, as the corrosive nature of HCl make such leaks
readily apparent.
Details that are typically included in EPA equipment leak
regulations (i.e., frequency of inspections, time interval between when
a leak is detected and when the equipment must be repaired, etc.) were
not available for the programs at HCl production facilities. Therefore,
we generally determined that the MACT floor for leaking equipment
emissions is a plan to detect and repair leaking equipment. We
considered a formal LDAR program, such as the HON provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart H), as a beyond-the-floor option. However, the HON
equipment program, and all similar programs (such as 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV) are limited to control of organic HAP or volatile organic
compound emissions. The EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is
specified as the method to detect the leaks in those rules. Method 21
is specific to organic pollutants. There is no comparable EPA reference
method to detect HCl or chlorine emissions from leaking equipment.
Therefore, we concluded that a formal LDAR program based on the
measurement of HCl or chlorine leaks is not a viable regulatory
alternative. Therefore, we selected the MACT floor level for the
proposed rule. As noted above, we did not have sufficient information
to draft specific LDAR procedures. Therefore, the proposed rule
contains the requirement that each HCl production facility establish a
site-specific program to identify and repair equipment leaks.
5. Wastewater Treatment Operations MACT
No add-on controls to reduce HCl emissions from wastewater were
reported in the available data. In addition, no process modifications
or other pollution prevention type measures that reduce HCl emissions
from wastewater were identified. Therefore, we determined that the new
and existing source MACT floors for wastewater were no emission
reduction. Since no add-on controls were reported to be in use at
existing HCl production facilities, we determined that requiring add-on
control was not a viable option more stringent than the floor. We also
concluded that a beyond-the-floor option based on process modifications
was not feasible, based on the following reasons. First, there are
numerous types of processes that produce an HCl by-product, which
results in a variety of wastewater scenarios. Therefore, we do not
believe that any process or raw material change could be expected to be
universally applied to wastewater streams at all types of HCl
production
[[Page 48182]]
facilities. Further, wastewater treatment is highly sensitive to pH,
and HCl has a significant impact on pH. For example, an activated
sludge treatment system normally consists of an equalization basin, a
settling tank (primary clarifier), aeration basin, a secondary
clarifier, and a sludge recycle line. Equalization of pH and other
parameters such as flow, temperature, and pollutant loads is necessary
to perform consistent, adequate treatment. We believe that the
potential negative impacts of upsetting existing wastewater systems is
not worthwhile, especially given the very small level of HCl emissions
from wastewater (less than 1 percent of total HCl emissions are from
wastewater operations). Therefore, the proposed rule does not contain
any requirements for wastewater.
E. How Did We Select the Testing, and Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We selected the proposed testing and initial and continuous
compliance requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements were
adopted for HCl production facilities to be consistent with other part
63 NESHAP. These requirements would ensure that we obtain or have
access to information sufficient to determine whether an affected
source is complying with the standards specified in the proposed rule.
The proposed NESHAP would require a compliance test to determine
initial compliance with the outlet concentration limit proposed for
process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations by using Method
26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The General Provisions (at
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)) specify that each test consist of at least three
separate test runs. The proposed rule adopts this requirement. Further,
the proposed rule requires that each test run be at least 1 hour long.
In order to assure continuous compliance with the emissions limit
for process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations, we are
proposing to require the use of CPMS to monitor operating parameters
(e.g., pH of the scrubber liquid) to ensure proper operation of the
control device. You would demonstrate continuous compliance by
maintaining the monitored parameters within the operating limits which
would be established using data collected during the initial
performance test. We chose the parameters to be measured to demonstrate
continuous compliance because they are the best indicators of continued
performance of proper control device operation.
We considered requiring the use of continuous HCl and chlorine
emission monitoring systems, but rejected the option. While there are
readily available HCl and chlorine continuous emissions monitoring
systems, the cost of these compared to the cost of the monitoring
control device parameters is unreasonable. The annualized cost to
install and operate a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy system to
monitor both HCl and chlorine is approximately $206,000, with
approximately $77,000 in annualized costs. In contrast, the capital
costs for parametric monitoring devices and a data recording device
would be less than $5,000 per control device with an annualized cost of
less than $900.
F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). As with the proposed initial
and continuous compliance requirements, these requirements were adapted
for HCl production facilities to be consistent with other part 63
national emission standards.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline emissions are approximately 2,260 Mg/yr (2,490
tpy) of HCl and 880 Mg/yr (970 tpy) of chlorine. The total annual
emissions reductions resulting from the proposed rule is 1,090 Mg/yr
(1,200 tpy) of HCl and 540 Mg/yr (590 tpy) of chlorine.
B. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We do not expect that there will be any significant adverse non-air
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed
standards for HCl production plants. The proposed rule will result in
the generation of additional wastewater from scrubbers. We have
calculated this amount to be approximately 103,000 gallons per process
vent scrubber, resulting in an estimated treatment cost of $390 per
scrubber, or $25,000 for the 64 existing facilities.
C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the proposed rule for HCl
production is $9,981.000. The total estimated annual cost of the
proposed rule is $5,975,000, which includes the annualized costs of
control and monitoring equipment, other operation and maintenance, and
the annual labor to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule once the sources are in compliance.
The economic impact analysis, which is a comparison of compliance
costs for the affected parent firms with their revenues, shows that the
estimated costs associated with the MACT floor option are no more than
1.0 percent of the revenues for any of the 32 affected firms. It is
likely that the expected reduction in affected HCl output is no more
than 0.01 percent or less from that industry. It should be noted that
these results are based on the application of costs from a subset of
the affected facilities to the remaining facilities. This is necessary
due to incomplete facility-level cost data. Therefore, it is likely
that there is no adverse impact expected to HCl producers as a result
of implementation of the proposed rule.
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposed rule from all
interested parties. You will need to submit full supporting data and
detailed analysis with your comments to allow us to make the best use
of them.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 48183]]
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 this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this action.
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 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.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule applies to
affected sources in the HCl production industry, not to States or local
governments. State law will not be preempted, nor any mandates be
imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
D. 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: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the 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 considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
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 the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's
risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist
that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost.
Additionally, this proposed rule is not ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. 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, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us 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 us to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish 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 our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost of this proposed
rule for any 1 year has been estimated at $6 million per year. Thus,
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
[[Page 48184]]
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as a small business according to
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) category of the owning
parent entity. The small business size standard for the affected
industries (NAICS 325181, Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing, and
NAICS 325188, All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing) is a
maximum of 1,000 employees for an entity.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with
the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., we conducted
an assessment of the proposed rule on small businesses within the
industries affected by the proposed rule. Based on SBA size definitions
for the affected industries and reported sales and employment data, we
identified 4 affected small businesses out of 32 affected parent
businesses (or 13 percent of the total number). In order to estimate
impacts to affected small businesses, we conducted a screening analysis
that consists of estimates of the annual compliance costs these
businesses are expected to occur as compared to their revenues. Since
the data are such that costs can only be estimated for a subset of the
affected facilities, the available data were used to determine the
costs to the facilities outside of this subset. The results of this
screening analysis show that all but one of the small businesses are
expected to have annual compliance costs of 1 percent or less.
Therefore, this analysis allows us to certify that there will not be a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities from the
implementation of this proposed rule. For more information, consult the
docket for this project.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (ICR Number 2032.01), and you may obtain a copy
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 148,032 labor hours, and
the annual average burden is 49,675 labor hours. The labor cost over
the 3-year period is $6,331,734, or $2,110,578 per year. The annualized
capital cost for monitoring equipment is $25,632. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are $1,256,063 over 3 years, averaging $418,688 per
year. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating
compliance, annual compliance certificate reports, notifications, and
recordkeeping.
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 purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or 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.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 18, 2001, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October
18, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes
in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 4, and
26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these EPA methods. No
[[Page 48185]]
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA
Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, and 2G. The search and review results have been
documented and are placed in the docket (A-99-41) for this proposed
rule.
This search for emission measurement procedures identified eight
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed
rule. The EPA determined that six of these eight standards were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this
proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA does not propose to adopt these
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods
are discussed below.
The standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary Source Emissions--
Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts,''
is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in this proposed rule.
This standard, ISO 10780:1994, recommends the use of L-shaped pitots,
which historically have not been recommended by EPA because the S-type
design has large openings which are less likely to plug up with dust.
The standard ASTM D3464-96, ``Standard Test Method Average Velocity
in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is impractical as an
alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this proposed rule
primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined,
e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits. Also, the lack of
supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and
specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately
addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive
comparison of the method in these areas.
The European standard EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ``Stationary Source
Emissions--Manual Method of Determination of HCl--Part 1: Sampling of
Gases Ratified European Text--Part 2: Gaseous Compounds Absorption
Ratified European Text--Part 3: Adsorption Solutions Analysis and
Calculation Ratified European Text,'' is impractical as an alternative
to EPA Method 26A. Part 3 of this standard cannot be considered
equivalent to EPA Method 26 or 26A because the sample absorbing
solution (water) would be expected to capture both HCl and chlorine
gas, if present, without the ability to distinguish between the two.
The EPA Methods 26 and 26A use an acidified absorbing solution to first
separate HCl and chlorine gas so that they can be selectively absorbed,
analyzed, and reported separately. In addition, in EN 1911 the
absorption efficiency for chlorine gas would be expected to vary as the
pH of the water changed during sampling.
Three of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-91,
``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),''
for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, and 4; ASTM 3796-90 (Reapproved 1996),
``Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,'' for EPA
Method 2; and ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method
for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and
Dry-Bulb Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4.
The following two of the eight voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in
Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,''
for EPA Method 2; and ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity
Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2). While we are not
proposing to include these two voluntary consensus standards in today's
proposal, the EPA will consider the standards when final.
The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
proposed in this proposed rule and specifically invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's
test methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
Section 63.9020 to subpart NNNNN lists the EPA testing methods
included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of the
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use
alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: September 7, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
Sec. 63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?
Sec. 63.8990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
Sec. 63.8995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.9000 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9005 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9010 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
Sec. 63.9015 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
Sec. 63.9020 What performance tests and other procedures must I
use?
Sec. 63.9025 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
Sec. 63.9030 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9035 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Sec. 63.9040 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?
[[Page 48186]]
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9045 What notifications must I submit and when?
Sec. 63.9050 What reports must I submit and when?
Sec. 63.9055 What records must I keep?
Sec. 63.9060 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9065 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Sec. 63.9070 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Sec. 63.9075 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN--Performance Test Requirements for HCl
Production Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN--Continuous Compliance with Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart NNNNN
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) and work practice standards for HAP emitted
from hydrochloric acid (HCl) production. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards.
Sec. 63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an HCl
production facility that is located at or is part of a major source of
HAP.
(1) An HCl production facility is the collection of equipment used
to produce, store, and transfer for shipping liquid HCl product at a
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater.
(2) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
(b) You are not subject to this subpart if the operations that
produce liquid HCl are also subject to NESHAP under one of the subparts
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.
(2) 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
(3) 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
(4) 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
(c) You are not subject to this subpart if the operations that
produce liquid HCl occur following the incineration of chlorinated
waste gas streams and the operations are subject to the one of the
requirements listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) 40 CFR part 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission Standards
for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels,
Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.
(2) 40 CFR part 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (subpart O,
Incinerators).
(3) 40 CFR Part 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
(d) You are not subject to this subpart if all of the HCl and
chlorine (Cl2) vent streams from the equipment (including
absorbers, storage tanks and transfer operations) at the HCl production
facility are recycled or routed to another process prior to being
discharged to the atmosphere.
Sec. 63.8990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at an HCl production facility.
(b) The affected source is the HCl production facility, which
contains the collection of emission streams listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Each emission stream from an HCl process vent.
(2) Each emission stream from an HCl storage tank.
(3) Each emission stream from an HCl transfer operation.
(4) Leaks from equipment in HCl/Cl2 service.
(5) Each emission stream from HCl wastewater treatment operations.
There are no emission limitations or other requirements in this subpart
that apply to this equipment.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after September 18, 2001 and you
met the applicability criteria of Sec. 63.8985 at the time you
commenced construction.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.8995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) If you start up your affected source before [DATE THE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the
emission limitations and work practice standards in this subpart no
later than [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) If you start up your affected source after [DATE THE FINAL RULE
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the
emission limitations and work practice standards in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the emission limitations and work practice standards no later than 3
years after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the
provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the area source becomes a
major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9045
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.9045 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
[[Page 48187]]
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.9000 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in
Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9005 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.8995 and the date upon which continuous
compliance monitoring systems have been installed and validated and any
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions
control equipment.
(d) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last
control device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Secs. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and
(8), and 63.9030.
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and (e)(1) and (2)(i).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9010 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance
date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995(a) and according
to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must conduct
performance tests no later than the compliance date that is specified
for your existing affected source in Sec. 63.8995(b) and according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
September 18, 2001 and [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the
proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no
later than 180 calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.9015 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct all applicable performance tests according to
the procedures in Sec. 63.9020 on an annual basis. The first subsequent
performance tests must be completed within 12 months of the initial
performance test, but no earlier than 10 months after the initial
performance test and every 12 months, thereafter.
(b) You must report the results of annual performance tests within
60 days after the completion of the test. This report should also
verify that the operating limits for your affected source have not
changed or provide documentation of revised operating parameters
established as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. The reports for
all subsequent performance tests should include all applicable
information required in Sec. 63.9050.
Sec. 63.9020 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must conduct each performance test according the site-
specific test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2).
(c) You must conduct each performance test under representative
conditions according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under
the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 3.
(d) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in
Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(f) You must establish all applicable operating permit ranges that
correspond to compliance with the emission limit as described in Table
3 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.9025 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) For each operating parameter that you are required by
Sec. 63.9020(f) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain
each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9005(e) and (f) and paragraphs (a)(1) through
(6) of this section.
(1) You must operate your CPMS at all times the process is
operating.
(2) You must collect data from at least four equally spaced periods
each hour.
(3) For at least 75 percent of the hours in a 24-hour period, you
must have valid data (as defined in your site-specific monitoring plan)
for at least 4 equally spaced periods each hour.
(4) For each hour that you have valid data from at least four
equally spaced periods, you must calculate the hourly average value
using all valid data.
(5) You must calculate the daily average using all of the hourly
averages calculated according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section for
the 24-hour period.
(6) You must record the results for each inspection, calibration,
and validation check as specified in your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(b) For liquid flow monitoring devices such as various types of
flow meters, including magnetic, mass, thermal, fluidic oscillating,
vortex formation, turbine, and positive displacement, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
[[Page 48188]]
(1) You must locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment
in or as close to a position that provides a representative flow.
(2) You must use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement
uncertainty of two percent of the flow rate.
(3) You must conduct at least semi-annually a flow sensor
calibration check.
(4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components
for integrity, of all electrical connections for continuity, and of all
mechanical connections for leakage.
(5) You must record the results of the inspection and flow sensor
calibration in a log.
(c) For pH monitoring devices, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must locate the pH sensor so that a representative pH is
provided.
(2) You must ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative
of the fluid to be measured.
(3) You must check the pH meter's calibration on at least two
points every 8 hours of process operation.
(4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components
for integrity and of all electrical connections for continuity.
(5) You must record the results of the calibration and inspection
in a log.
(d) For any other control device, ensure that the CPMS is operated
according to a monitoring plan submitted to the Administrator as
required by Sec. 63.8(f). The monitoring plan must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to the
Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator require
an alternate monitoring scheme.
(1) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that
the control or capture efficiency measured during the initial
compliance test is maintained.
(2) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating
ongoing compliance.
(3) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.
Sec. 63.9030 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limit and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table
4 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9020 and Table 3 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9045(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9035 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) If you use a caustic scrubber or a water scrubber/absorber to
meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to
support your compliance demonstration.
(1) Records of daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow rate.
(2) Records of the daily average scrubber effluent pH.
(c) If you use any other control device to meet the emission limits
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep records of the operating
parameter values identified in your monitoring plan in Sec. 63.9025(e)
to support your compliance demonstration.
(d) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the affected
source is operating. A monitoring malfunction includes, but is not
limited to, any sudden, infrequent, not reasonable failure of the
monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that
are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions.
(e) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
Sec. 63.9040 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit and work practice standard in Table 1 to this subpart that
applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you according to
Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart.
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
emission limit, work practice standard or operating limit in Table 1 or
2, respectively, to this subpart that applies to you. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9050.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9045 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and
(c), 63.8(f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by
the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected
source before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120
calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit the application for
construction or reconstruction required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1)(iii) in lieu
of the initial notification.
[[Page 48189]]
(d) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test
is scheduled to begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) When you conduct a performance test as specified in Table 3 to
this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status
according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(f) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(g) The Notification of Compliance Status must also include the
information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section that
applies to you.
(1) Each operating parameter value averaged over the full period of
the performance test (for example, average pH).
(2) Each operating parameter range within which HAP emissions are
reduced to the level corresponding to meeting the applicable emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) A copy of the equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan
(unless it has already been submitted).
Sec. 63.9050 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.8995 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.8995.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4).
(c) The compliance report must contain the following information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there
were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(7) Verification that you continue to use the equipment LDAR plan
and information that explains any periods when the procedures in the
plan were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CPMS to comply with the emission
limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section and the following
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A brief description of the process units.
(9) A description of any changes in CPMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source
submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 6 to this subpart along
with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40
CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report
includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation in this subpart, submission of the compliance
report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements
to the permit authority.
(f) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting
period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and
malfunction report. Unless the Administrator has approved a different
schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit
each report according to paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) An initial report containing a description of the actions taken
for the
[[Page 48190]]
event must be submitted by fax or telephone within 2 working days after
starting actions inconsistent with the plan.
(2) A follow-up report containing the information listed in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) must be submitted within 7 working days after the
end of the event unless you have made alternative reporting
arrangements with the permitting authority.
Sec. 63.9055 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you
submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance
Status that you submitted, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(b) You must also keep the following records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)-(v) related to startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(2) Records of performance tests as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Records of operating parameter values that are consistent with
your monitoring plan.
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(5) Copy of the equipment LDAR plan.
Sec. 63.9060 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious inspection and review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9065 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
(a) Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.9070 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, as well as U.S. EPA,
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) that cannot be
delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as follows.
(1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Secs. 63.8980,
63.8985, 63.8990, 63.8995, and 63.9000.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.9075 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as
follows:
Caustic scrubber means any add-on device that mixes an aqueous
stream or slurry containing caustic solution (e.g., lime, limestone)
with the exhaust gases from an affected HCl production facility to
control emissions of and/or to absorb and neutralize HCl.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation;
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
In HCl/Cl2 service means a piece of equipment (pump,
compressor, valve, connector, etc.) at an HCl production facility that
contains HCl and/or chlorine.
Hydrochloric acid process vent means a process vent through which
an emission stream containing HCl is vented to the atmosphere. The
emission stream may or may not be treated by an HCl absorption column,
chlorinated hydrocarbon stripping column, or HCl desorption column
before venting to the atmosphere.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2 of this chapter.
Transfer operation means the loading, into a tank truck or railcar,
of liquid HCl from a transfer (or loading) rack (as defined in this
section).
Transfer (or loading) rack means the collection of loading arms and
loading hoses, at a single loading rack, that are used to fill tank
trucks and/or railcars with liquid HCl. Transfer rack includes the
associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other
piping and valves.
Vent means to discharge emissions to the atmosphere from either an
HCl process vent, storage tank, or transfer operation.
Water scrubber/absorber means any add-on device that mixes an
aqueous stream (not containing caustic solution) with the exhaust gases
from an affected HCl production facility to control emissions of and/or
to absorb and neutralize HCl.
Tables
[[Page 48191]]
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN.--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
[As stated in Sec. 63.9000(a), you must comply with the following
emission limits and work practice standards]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For each * * * emission limit and work practice
standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission stream from an HCl outlet concentration shall not
process vent. exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl or
20 ppm by volume of Cl2.
2. Emission stream from an HCl outlet concentration shall not
storage tank. exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl.
3. Emission stream from an HCl outlet concentration shall not
transfer operation. exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl.
4. Emission stream from leaking a. prepare and operate at all times
equipment in HCl/Cl2 service. according to an equipment LDAR
plan that describes in detail the
measures that will be put in place
to detect leaks and repair them in
a timely fashion, and
b. you may use existing manuals
that describe the measures in
place to control leaking equipment
emissions required as part of
other federally enforceable
requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN.--Operating Limits
[As stated in Sec. 63.9000(b), you must comply with the following
operating limits for each affected source vented to a control device]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each * * * You must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Caustic scrubber or water a. maintain the daily average
scrubber/absorber. scrubber inlet liquid flow rate
above the minimum value
established during the performance
test, and
b. maintain the daily average
scrubber effluent pH within the
operating range value established
during the performance test.
2. Other type of control device to maintain your operating
which HCl emissions are ducted. parameter(s) within the ranges
established during the performance
test and according to your
monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN.--Performance Test Requirements for HCl
Production Affected Sources
[As stated in Sec. 63.9020, you must comply with the following
requirements for performance tests for HCl production for each affected
source]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For each affected source, you Using * * * following
must * * * requirements * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port Method 1 or 1A in sampling sites
location(s) and the number of appendix A to 40 must be located
traverse points. CFR part 60 of at the outlet of
this chapter. the scrubber and
prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
2. Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C,
volumetric flow rate. 2D, 2F, or 2G in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 of
this chapter.
3. Determine gas molecular not applicable.... assume a molecular
weight. weight of 29
(after moisture
correction) for
calculation
purposes.
4. Measure moisture content of Method 4 in
the stack gas. appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 of
this chapter.
5. Measure HCl concentration Method 26A in a. measure total
from each affected source and Appendix A to 40 emissions using
Cl2 concentration from process CFR part 60 of Method 26A, and.
vent affected sources. this chapter.
b. collect
scrubber liquid
flow rate and
scrubber effluent
pH every 15
minutes during
the entire
duration of each
1-hour test run,
and determine the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate
and scrubber
effluent pH over
the period of the
performance test
by computing the
average of all of
the 15-minute
readings.
6. Establish operating parameter EPA-approved conduct the
limits with which you will methods and data performance tests
demonstrate continuous from the and establish
compliance with the emission continuous operating
limit in Table 1 to this parameter parameter limits
subpart, if you use any other monitoring system. according to site-
control device than a caustic specific test
scrubber or a water scrubber/ plan submitted
absorber. according to Sec.
63.7(c)(2)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48192]]
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits and
Work Practice Standards
[As stated in Sec. 63.9030, you must comply with the following
requirements to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
emission limits for each affected source vented to a control device and
each work practice standard]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have
emission limit or demonstrated
For each * * * work practice initial following
standard * * * compliance if * *
---------------------------------------------------------------*--------
1. Affected source using a in Table 1 to this the average HCl
austic scrubber or water subpart. and Cl2 (if
scrubber/absorber. applicable)
concentration,
measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted
according to
Table 3 of this
subpart, is less
than the
concentration
limit specified
in Table 1 to
this subpart.
2. Affected source using any in Table 1 to this the average HCl
other type of control device. subpart. and Cl2 (if
applicable)
concentration,
measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted
according to
Table 3 of this
subpart, is less
than the
concentration
limit specified
in Table 1 to
this subpart.
3. Leaking equipment affected in Table 1 to this submit a copy of
source. subpart. the equipment
LDAR plan to the
designated
permitting
authority on or
before the
applicable
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.8995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN.--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
[As stated in Sec. 63.9040, you must comply with the following
requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limitations for each affected source vented to a control device
and each work practice standard]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission You must
For each... limitation and demonstrate
work practice continuous
standard... compliance by...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affected source using a in Tables 1 and 2 a. demonstrating
caustic scrubber or water to this subpart. with the annual
scrubber/absorber. performance test
that the average
HCl and Cl2 (if
applicable)
concentration,
measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted
according to
Table 3 of this
subpart, is less
than the
concentration
limit specified
in Table 1 to
this subpart, and
b. collecting the
scrubber inlet
liquid flow rate
and effluent pH
monitoring data
according to Sec.
63.9025,
consistent with
your monitoring
plan, and
c. reducing the
data to 1-hour
and daily block
averages
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.9025,
and
d. maintaining the
daily average
scrubber inlet
liquid flow rate
above the minimum
value established
during the
performance test,
and
e. maintaining the
daily average
scrubber effluent
pH within the
operating range
established
during the
performance test.
2. Affected source using any in Tables 1 and 2 a. demonstrating
other control device. to this supbart. with the annual
performance test
that the average
HCl and Cl2
concentration (if
applicable),
measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted
according to
Table 3 of this
subpart, is less
than the
concentration
limit specified
in Table 1 to
this subpart, and
b. collecting the
scrubber inlet
liquid flow rate
and effluent pH
monitoring data
according to Sec.
63.9025,
consistent with
your monitoring
plan, and
c. reducing the
data to 1-hour
and daily block
averages
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.9025,
and
d. maintaining the
daily average
scrubber inlet
liquid flow rate
above the minimum
value established
during the
performance test,
and
e. maintaining the
daily average
scrubber effluent
pH within the
operating range
established
during the
performance test.
[[Page 48193]]
3. Leaking equipment affected in Table 1 to this a. verifying that
source. subpart. you continue to
use a LDAR plan,
and
b. reporting any
instances where
you deviated from
the plan and the
corrective
actions taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN.--Requirements for Reports
[As stated in Sec. 63.9050(a), you must submit a compliance report that
includes the information in Sec. 63.9050(c) through (e) as well as the
information in the following table. You must also submit startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) reports according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9050(f) and the following]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must submit a report
If * * * or statement that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There are no deviations from any there were no deviations from
emission limitations that apply to you. the emission limitations
during the reporting period.
2. There were no periods during which there were no periods during
the operating parameter monitoring which the CPMS were out-of-
systems were out-of-control in control during the reporting
accordance with the monitoring plan. period.
3. There was a deviation from any contains the information in
emission limitation during the Sec. 63.9050(d).
reporting period.
4. There were periods during which the contains the information in
operating parameter monitoring systems Sec. 63.9050(d).
were out-of-control in accordance with
the monitoring plan.
5. There was a startup, shutdown, or contains the information in
malfunction during the reporting Sec. 63.9050(f).
period that is not consistent with
your startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions plan.
6. There were periods when the contains the information in
procedures in the LDAR the plan were Sec. 63.9050(c)(7).
not followed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
[As stated in Sec. 63.9065, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Requirement NNNNN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................... Initial applicability Yes....................
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions;
notifications.
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............ Yes.................... additional definitions
are found in Sec.
63.9075.
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and abbreviations Yes....................
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited activities; Yes....................
compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5........................... Construction/ Yes....................
reconstruction
applicability;
applications;
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)........................ Compliance with Yes....................
standards and
maintenance
requirements--applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)................. Compliance dates for Yes.................... Sec. 63.8995 specifies
new or reconstructed compliance dates.
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)..................... Notification if Yes....................
commenced construction
or reconstruction
after proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)..................... [Reserved]............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)..................... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Sec. 63.8995 specifies
new or reconstructed compliance dates.
area sources that
become major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................. Compliance dates for Yes.................... Sec. 63.8995 specifies
existing sources. compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................. [Reserved]............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)..................... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Sec. 63.8995 specifies
existing area sources compliance dates.
that become major.
Sec. 63.6(d)........................ [Reserved]............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................. Operation and Yes....................
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)..................... Startup, shutdown, and Yes....................
malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)..................... Compliance except Yes....................
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................. Methods for determining Yes....................
compliance.
[[Page 48194]]
Sec. 63.6(g)........................ Use of an alternative Yes....................
nonopacity emission
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)........................ Compliance with opacity/ No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
visible emission specify opacity or
standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)........................ Extension of compliance Yes....................
with emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(j)........................ Presidential compliance Yes....................
exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................. Performance test dates. Yes.................... except for existing
affected sources as
specified in Sec.
63.9010(b).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)..................... Administrator's CAA Yes....................
section 114 authority
to require a
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(b)........................ Notification of Yes....................
performance test and
rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c)........................ Quality assurance Yes....................
program and site-
specific test plans.
Sec. 63.7(d)........................ Performance testing Yes....................
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)..................... Conditions for Yes....................
conducting performance
tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)........................ Use of an alternative Yes....................
test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)........................ Performance test data Yes....................
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
Sec. 63.7(h)........................ Waiver of performance Yes....................
tests.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)................. Applicability of Yes.................... additional monitoring
monitoring requirements are found
requirements. in Sec. 63.9005(e)
and (f) and 63.9035.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Monitoring with flares. No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
refer directly or
indirectly to Sec.
63.11.
Sec. 63.8(b)........................ Conduct of monitoring Yes....................
and procedures when
there are multiple
effluents and multiple
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3)................. Continuous monitoring Yes.................... applies as modified by
system (CPMS) Sec. 63.9005(e) and
operation and (f).
maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... Continuous monitoring Yes.................... applies as modified by
system requirements Sec. 63.9005(f).
during breakdown, out-
of-control, repair,
maintenance, and high-
level calibration
drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)..................... Continuous opacity No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
monitoring system have opacity or
(COMS) minimum visible emission
procedures. standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)..................... Zero and high level Yes.................... applies as modified by
calibration checks. Sec. 63.9005(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................. Out-of-control periods, Yes....................
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e).................... Quality control program No..................... applies as modified by
and CPMS performance Sec. 63.9005(e) and
evaluation. (f).
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................. Use of an alternative Yes....................
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)..................... Alternative to relative No..................... only applies to sources
accuracy test. that use continuous
emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)........................ Data reduction......... Yes.................... applies as modified by
Sec. 63.9005(f).
Sec. 63.9(a)........................ Notification Yes....................
requirements--applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.9(b)........................ Initial notifications.. Yes.................... except Sec. 63.9045(c)
requires new or
reconstructed affected
sources to submit the
application for
construction or
reconstruction
required by Sec.
63.9(b)(1)(iii) in
lieu of the initial
notification.
Sec. 63.9(c)........................ Request for compliance Yes....................
extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)........................ Notification that a new Yes....................
source is subject to
special compliance
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)........................ Notification of Yes....................
performance test.
Sec. 63.9(f)........................ Notification of visible No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
emissions/opacity test. have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)..................... Additional CPMS Yes....................
notifications--date of
CPMS performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)..................... Use of COMS data....... No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
require the use of
COMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)..................... Alternative to relative No..................... applies only to sources
accuracy testing. with CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)........................ Notification of Yes....................
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i)........................ Adjustment of submittal Yes....................
deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)........................ Change in previous Yes....................
information.
Sec. 63.10(a)....................... Recordkeeping/reporting Yes....................
applicability.
[[Page 48195]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).................... General recordkeeping Yes.................... Secs. 63.9055 and
requirements. 63.9060 specify
additional
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (i)-(xi)........... Records related to Yes....................
startup, shutdown, and
malfunction periods
and CPMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)............... Records when under Yes....................
waiver.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............. Records when using No..................... applies only to sources
alternative to with CEMS.
relative accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............... All documentation Yes....................
supporting initial
notification and
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).................... Recordkeeping Yes....................
requirements for
applicability
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)....................... Additional Yes.................... applies as modified by
recordkeeping Sec. 63.9005(f).
requirements for
sources with CPMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).................... General reporting Yes.................... Sec. 63.9050 specifies
requirements. additional reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).................... Performance test Yes....................
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).................... Opacity or visible No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
emissions observations. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).................... Progress reports for Yes....................
sources with
compliance extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).................... Startup, shutdown, and Yes....................
malfunction reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1).................... Additional CPMS Yes.................... applies as modified by
reports--general. Sec. 63.9005(f).
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(i)................. Results of CPMS Yes.................... applies as modified by
performance Sec. 63.9005(f).
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)................ Results of COMS No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
performance require the use of
evaluations. COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3).................... Excess emissions/CPMS Yes....................
performance reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).................... Continuous opacity No..................... subpart NNNNN does not
monitoring system data require the use of
reports. COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)....................... Recordkeeping/reporting Yes....................
waiver.
Sec. 63.11.......................... Control device No..................... facilities subject to
requirements--applicab subpart NNNNN do not
ility. use flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12.......................... State authority and Yes.................... Sec. 63.9070 lists
delegations. those sections of
subparts NNNNN and A
that are not
delegated.
Sec. 63.13.......................... Addresses.............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.14.......................... Incorporation by Yes.................... subpart NNNNN does not
reference. incorporate any
material by reference.
Sec. 63.15.......................... Availability of Yes....................
information/
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-23083 Filed 9-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P