[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46258-46289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12841]
[[Page 46257]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology; Final Rules and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2002 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 46258]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7215-7]
RIN 2060-AH68
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates amendments to the ``generic'' maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards to add national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for four additional
source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black
Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production. The generic
MACT standards provide a structural framework that allows source
categories with similar emission types and MACT control requirements to
be covered under one subpart, thus promoting regulatory consistency in
NESHAP development. The EPA has identified these four source categories
as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including cyanide
compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl sulfide, carbon
disulfide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene
diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and 1,3
butadiene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. The other
pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These
standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by
requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting
the application of MACT. This action also promulgates NESHAP for the
heat exchange systems and wastewater operations at ethylene
manufacturing facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-17 contains supporting information used in
developing the generic MACT standards. Dockets established for each of
the source categories to be assimilated under the generic MACT
standards with this action include: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
(Docket No. A-2000-14), Carbon Black Production (Docket No. A-98-10),
Ethylene Production (Docket No. A-98-22), and Spandex Production
(Docket No. A-98-25). These dockets include source-category-specific
supporting information. All dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-
1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and may be
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR
63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing
the NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards Division,
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone/facsimile/ e-mail
Information type Contact (mailcode) Group address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General........................... Mark Morris (C50404). Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5416/(919) 541-3470/
Group. [email protected]
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing... Keith Barnett Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5605/(919) 541-3470/
(C50405). Group. [email protected]
Carbon Black Production........... John Schaefer Organic Chemicals (919) 541-0296/(919) 541-3470/
(C50404). Group. [email protected]
Ethylene Production............... Warren Johnson Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5267/(919) 541-3470/
(C50404). Group. [email protected]
Spandex Production................ Elaine Manning Waste and Chemical (919) 541-5499/(919) 541-3470/
(C43903). Processes Group. [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the
development of this rulemaking. 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 rulemaking 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.
Public Comments. The NESHAP for the four source categories
mentioned above were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76408). The
comment letters received on the proposal are available in Docket No. A-
97-17 or the dockets established for the four source categories (see
ADRESSESS), along with a summary of the comment letters and EPA's
responses to the comments. In response to the public comments, EPA
adjusted the final NESHAP where appropriate.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. 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.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
[[Page 46259]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code SIC code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial........................... 325188, 325199......... 2819, 2869............. Producers and
coproducers of
hydrogen cyanide and
sodium cyanide.
325182................. 2895................... Producers of carbon
black by thermal-
oxidative
decomposition in a
closed system, thermal
decomposition in a
cyclic process, or
thermal decomposition
in a continuous
process.
325110................. 2869................... Producers of ethylene
from refined petroleum
or liquid
hydrocarbons.
325222................. 2824................... Producers of spandex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS or SIC codes are
affected. Other types of entities not listed could be affected. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1104 of the final 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.
Judicial Review: The NESHAP were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65
FR 76408). This action announces EPA's final decisions on the NESHAP.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final NESHAP
is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2002.
Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during
judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
that are the subject of today's final NESHAP may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
D. Why is the EPA including today's standards in the generic
MACT standards?
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Applicability
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
VI. Spandex Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, 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
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Congressional Review Act
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in four source categories:
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene
Production, and Spandex Production.
B. 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. The four
categories of major sources for which NESHAP are being established by
today's action were listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and February 12, 1998 (63 FR
6291); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); Ethylene
Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex Production, July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the
potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or
25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
C. 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 control 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 can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
five sources 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, any health and
[[Page 46260]]
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
D. Why Is the EPA Including Today's Standards in the Generic MACT
Standards?
We are including NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing,
Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production
source categories under the generic MACT standards to reduce the
regulatory burden associated with the development of separate
rulemakings. An owner or operator should consult the generic MACT
standards for information on applicability of the standards to their
source, compliance schedules, and standards. The generic MACT standards
generally refer the owner or operator to other subparts for
requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance.
We are including the NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and
Spandex Production source categories in the generic MACT standards to
simplify the rulemaking process, to minimize the potential for
duplicative or conflicting requirements, to conserve limited resources,
and to ensure consistency of the air emissions requirements applied to
similar emission points. We believe that the generic MACT regulatory
framework is appropriate for these source categories because it allows
us to incorporate specific applicability and control requirements that
reflect our decisions on these source categories while also utilizing
generic requirements previously established for similar emission
sources that we have determined are also applicable here.
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
The major comments received regard the performance specifications
for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) that were proposed
as an amendment to the referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Other
comments received on subpart YY and the referenced subparts and the
responses to those comments are in Docket No. A-97-17.
Several commenters stated that the proposed performance
specifications for CPMS would be costly and would not provide an
environmental benefit. We proposed performance specifications for CPMS
to ensure that such systems are installed, calibrated, and operated in
a manner that would yield accurate and reliable information regarding
the performance of closed vent systems and control devices. Subpart SS
currently states that ``all monitoring equipment shall be installed,
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's
specifications or other written procedures that provide adequate
assurance that the equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor
accurately.'' Therefore, owners and operators are already required by
subpart SS to follow written performance specifications, but not
necessarily the ones that we proposed in the amendments.
We have decided not to include the performance specifications for
CPMS in the final subpart SS for two reasons. First, the number and
complexity of the comments would not allow for the expeditious
promulgation of the standards for the four source categories we are
including under subpart YY. Second, we are currently developing
performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners and
operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63.
Since owners and operators subject to subpart SS are currently
required to follow specifications for CPMS, even though they may not be
as specific as those we proposed, we have decided to wait for the
rulemaking that will propose performance specifications for all of 40
CFR part 63. We decided it would be premature to promulgate performance
specifications for subpart SS when the performance specifications that
would ultimately be promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be
significantly different as a result of possible public comments
received on that rulemaking.
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 238 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (263 tpy). The final standards will reduce HAP
emissions by approximately 106 Mg/yr (117 tpy). This is a 45 percent
HAP emission reduction from the baseline level for this source category
and a 58 percent reduction for those facilities required to install
controls to comply with the final standards.
We also estimate that the final standards will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 tpy). We estimate
that the final standards will result in an increase in sulfur oxides
(SOX) emissions of 7.3 Mg/yr (8 tpy), an increase in
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions of 10.3 Mg/yr (11.4 tpy), an
increase in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of 42.1 Mg/yr (46.4 tpy),
and an increase in particulate matter (PM) emissions of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3
tpy). Increases in emissions would result from on-site combustion of
fossil fuels and emission streams because of control device operations.
2. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there will not be significant adverse non-air
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final
standards. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the
application of the control and recovery devices required under the
final standards. We determine impacts relative to the baseline that is
set at the level of control in absence of the rule.
Control of equipment leaks is expected to reduce the amount of HAP-
containing material that would be discharged to a facility's wastewater
treatment stream through equipment washdown or from stormwater runoff.
The use of a scrubber for HAP control of emissions from vents will
create HAP-containing effluent. It is anticipated that any wastewater
stream created from the use of a scrubber would be treated at a
facility's wastewater treatment system with other waste streams.
There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts expected as a
result of the final standards. A small amount of solid waste may result
from replacement of equipment such as seals, packing, rupture disks,
and other equipment components, such as pumps and valves. A minimum
amount of solid or hazardous waste could also be generated from the use
of steam strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible
sources generated include organic compounds recovered in the steam
stripper overhead condenser or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
The energy demands associated with the final standards will result
from the use of additional electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil to
run control equipment. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment
leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any
additional energy. The total nationwide energy demand that would result
from implementing the process vent controls is approximately 3.1 x
10\14\ Joules per year.
[[Page 46261]]
3. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final standards is
$939,000. The total estimated annual cost of the final standards is
$2.4 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts
that the final standards would have on the cyanide manufacturing
market, consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in
1998 dollars) of the final standards on the industry is $2.4 million,
which is much less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the
affected sources. A screening analysis indicates that no individual
firm affected by the final standards for the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing source category would experience costs in excess of 0.001
percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact of the
final standards will be minimal. No cyanide chemicals manufacturing
facility closures are expected.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, we made
several changes to the final standards, as well as some clarifications
designed to make our intentions clearer. The substantive comments and/
or changes and responses made since the proposal are summarized in the
following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are
contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see
ADDRESSES section).
1. Applicability of the Rule
Some commenters expressed that there was potential for confusion
regarding the applicability of the rule. One commenter requested that
we specifically exempt downstream equipment from the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing NESHAP if the equipment is subject to another NESHAP.
Another commenter expressed that confusion regarding the
overlapping requirements affecting the same equipment could be reduced
if refined hydrogen cyanide (HCN) ``burned on-site as a fuel in a
boiler or industrial furnace'' was excluded as part of the HCN process.
The commenter explained that some producers that generate HCN as a
byproduct of acrylonitrile manufacture opt to burn the byproduct HCN
on-site as a fuel in boilers and/or industrial furnaces where its end
use is regulated under other standards.
One commenter requested that we clarify and restrict the
applicability of the rule by revising the definition of ``CCMPU'' as
follows:
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit or CCMPU means the
equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide
chemicals product. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit
shall be limited to any one of the following: an Andrussow process
unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio
hydrogen cyanide process unit * * *.
The commenter explained that, as proposed, the definition of CCMPU
could include a chemical manufacturing process unit that creates HCN or
sodium cyanide as an incidental or unintended byproduct that could be
considered an affected source subject to the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing requirements. The commenter stated that this
clarification could also be fulfilled by modifying the definition for
``cyanide chemicals product,'' as follows:
Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide or
sodium cyanide which is manufactured as the intended product of a
CCMPU or a byproduct of the Sohio process. Other hydrogen cyanide or
sodium cyanide byproducts, impurities, wastes and trace contaminants
are not considered to be cyanide chemicals products.
Based on comments received, we made a few changes to the final
standards. To avoid overlapping requirements applying to downstream
boilers and/or industrial furnaces, we excluded HCN vent streams used
for fuel value in boilers and/or industrial furnaces from HCN chemical
manufacturing processes. Exclusion of these boilers and industrial
furnaces that use vented emissions for fuel value from the requirements
of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process control requirements is
consistent with what is done in other MACT standards.
We also made the commenter's suggested amendments to the ``CCMPU''
and ``cyanide chemicals product'' definitions in the final standards.
These amendments were made because the intent of the commenter's
suggested amendments is consistent with our intent, and we believe that
the amended definitions will reduce any potential confusion regarding
the applicability of the rule.
2. Process Vent Standards
BMA/Andrussow process vent MACT control level. During our
evaluation of comments received on the proposed process vent standards,
we reevaluated the MACT level of control established for BMA/Andrussow
process vents. Based on our reevaluation, we decided to remove from the
MACT analyses HCN rich vent streams that are routed to a boiler or
industrial furnace for use as fuel. We did this to be consistent with
other NESHAP and because these vent streams are already regulated by
other standards. Once we removed these streams and adjusted the floor
based on new information received from industry, the MACT floor and
MACT level of control was determined to reduce HAP emissions by 98
weight-percent (rather than by 99 weight-percent) or to a concentration
level of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Therefore, the final
standards have been modified to require that you reduce HAP emissions
from Andrussow/BMA process vents by 98 weight-percent (rather than by
99 weight-percent), or to a concentration level of 20 ppmv. Because the
MACT level of control has been changed to 98 weight-percent, the final
standards also allow you to comply with the requirements for Andrussow/
BMA process vents by routing emissions to a flare.
Wet-end process vents. One commenter requested that the final
standards clarify that cyanide chemical manufacturing wastewater
collection systems and treatment equipment (tanks) containing discarded
wastewater are not part of the process and are not subject to the
process vent requirements. The commenter explained that weak HAP and
cyanide bearing wastewater is sent to, and handled in, on-site
wastewater collection and treatment systems and collected in sumps and
pumped into tanks where the wastewater is either recycled to recover
HCN, or treated in these tanks by hydrolysis and alkaline chlorination.
The commenter stated that such vents should be clarified to be subject
to the requirements specified for process and maintenance wastewater
control requirements under 40 CFR 63.1106 (a) and (b).
Based on this comment, we evaluated the wet end of the sodium
cyanide process unit regarding the clarity of the applicability of the
wet-end process vent requirements versus the applicability of discarded
process wastewater vent requirements. Based on the definitions for
``wet-end process vent,'' ``wastewater,'' and ``process wastewater,''
applicability of requirements appeared to be clear. However, to avoid
any potential applicability confusion, the final standards include an
amended definition for ``wet-end process vent'' that specifically
clarifies that discarded water that is no longer used in the production
process is considered to be process wastewater and that vents from
process and maintenance wastewater
[[Page 46262]]
operations are not wet-end process vents.
Annual emissions. One commenter stated that the MACT floor
determination for Andrussow/BMA process vents was based on annual
emissions and the proposed standards require compliance with the floor
level of control based on a formula that calculates an overall HAP
emission reduction based on hourly emission rates. The commenter
requested that compliance be based on meeting the proposed weight-
percent reduction on an annual basis to be consistent with the MACT
floor. The commenter also requested that Item 2 of Table 9 be modified
as follows:
a. Reduce the overall annual emission of total HAP from the
collection of process vents from continuous unit operations in the
process unit by 99 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph
(g)(4) of this section.
We agree that the MACT floor for Andrussow/BMA process vents was
based on annual emissions and, therefore, compliance with MACT should
also be based on annual emissions. We have amended the final standards
(Item 2 of Table 9 of Sec. 63.1103(g)) as suggested by the commenter.
3. Unsafe-to-Monitor Equipment
Two commenters expressed safety concerns with the proposed leak
detection and repair (LDAR) provisions. It was expressed that many of
the lines in HCN service are intentionally placed in out-of-the-way
locations to minimize risk in the event of a leak. One commenter
requested that we either exempt ``unsafe-to-monitor'' equipment
components from the LDAR program or stay implementation of these
requirements to allow adequate opportunity to investigate safer methods
than those proposed. The commenter explained that a large percentage of
pipeline components in HCN service that would be subject to the
proposed LDAR provisions are elevated and are not accessible during
operation due to safety concerns. The commenter stated that facilities
already have procedures in place to ensure that there are no leaks when
equipment is in HCN service. Industry feedback indicates that HCN
equipment is unsafe to monitor at all times that equipment is in
operation.
Based on our evaluation of the comments received regarding safety
concerns with the proposed LDAR provisions, we concur that there are
some equipment components that may never be safe to monitor. Therefore,
we have added language to the final standards specifying that you are
allowed to designate ``unsafe-to-monitor'' equipment with your
Notification of Compliance Status report. If it is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that designated equipment is never safe to
monitor, you would not be required to monitor the designated equipment.
4. Hydrogen Fueled Flares
Destruction efficiency. One commenter expressed that a 99%+
destruction efficiency is supported for hydrogen flares based on data
included in the EPA's ``Basis for Hydrogen Flaring'' report. The
commenter stated that these data were based on test methods developed
with the EPA and a special flare test-rig built for the experiment.
Another commenter requested that we add language to 40 CFR
63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(B) to allow an owner or operator of a cyanide
manufacturing facility to include a flare control efficiency greater
than 98% in the calculation of the overall HAP emission reduction,
provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency based on
technically relevant measurements that are of sufficient quality,
considering data variability.
We agree with the commenters that an owner or operator of a cyanide
manufacturing facility should be allowed to include a flare control
efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP
emission reduction provided they can demonstrate a higher control
efficiency for their flare. Therefore, the final standards allow an
owner or operator to include a flare control efficiency greater than
98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction if they
can demonstrate, to the Administrator's satisfaction, a greater control
efficiency (40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(A)).
Flare compliance monitoring requirements. Several commenters
recommended that a waiver from testing for all HCN flares be granted.
Specifically, one commenter requested a waiver from testing of the net
heating value using EPA Method 18, and two commenters requested that a
waiver from testing the velocity, using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, be granted (40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(ii) and
(7)(i), respectively). One commenter expressed that flow velocity
testing using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, require the insertion of a probe into the waste gas stream
which poses safety risks.
Based on comments received regarding it being unsafe to test HCN-
rich vent streams to flares, and our evaluation of the comments, we
have included provisions in the final standards that allow an owner or
operator to submit engineering calculations and/or data to substantiate
that flares meet applicable heat content and flow rates under worst
case conditions (40 CFR 63.987(b)(3)(v) and (4)).
IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by
1,830 Mg/yr (2,020 tpy). This is a 26 percent HAP emission reduction
from the total baseline HAP emissions, and a 95 percent HAP emission
reduction for those facilities required to install controls to meet the
standards.
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce CO emissions by
474,000 Mg/yr (522,000 tpy); VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 tpy); hydrogen
sulfide by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 tpy); and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820 tpy). We
estimate that the final NESHAP will increase SOX emissions
by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200 tpy) as a result of on-site combustion of
fossil fuels. However, the air quality benefits of the final NESHAP
(i.e., reduction in HAP, CO, VOC, and hydrogen sulfide emissions)
outweigh the negative impacts associated with the anticipated increases
in emissions of SOX and NOX.
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final NESHAP is $54.9
million. The total estimated annual cost of the final NESHAP is $11.2
million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the
final NESHAP will have on the industry, market, consumers, and society.
The total annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars) of the final NESHAP
to the industry is $11.2 million, which is less than 0.001 percent of
total baseline revenue for the affected sources. A screening analysis
suggests only one of the firms affected by the final NESHAP will
experience costs in excess of 1 percent of sales, and no firm will
experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of sales. For this reason, we
believe that the impact of the final NESHAP will be minimal. We expect
no facility closures as a result of the final NESHAP.
[[Page 46263]]
3. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there will not be any significant adverse non-air
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final
NESHAP. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the
application of control and recovery devices required under the final
NESHAP.
There are no water pollution or solid waste impacts expected from
the use of air emission control devices as a result of the final
NESHAP. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of
combustion control systems. We estimate that carbon black production
facilities will consume an additional 186 million cubic feet of natural
gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the final NESHAP.
This represents an increase in total domestic natural gas consumption
of less than 1/100th of one percent.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards for the
Carbon Black Production source category, we made several changes to the
final NESHAP. Only one substantive change was made based on comments
received on the proposal. We have summarized the relevant comment/
change made in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to
public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from
the docket (see ADDRESSES section).
One commenter requested an exemption from the closed vent system
initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements. The
commenter expressed that certain safety features are incorporated into
their closed vent system operations to protect against overpressure in
the case of catastrophic failure of their process filter systems.
Concern was expressed that the proposed initial and annual closed vent
system inspection requirements may defeat these safety measures because
cost-effective technology to provide leak proof seals for the extreme
operating temperature ranges that occur in the carbon black production
process is not available. The commenter explained that the catastrophic
loss of a bag filter due to gaseous build-up and failure can result in
ignition of gases, fires, and explosions. In order to prevent the
failure of the compartments, industry isolates the failed compartment
from the process. Safety relief valves (e.g., weighted-lid systems) are
designed into the system to relieve excess pressures, to prevent fires
and explosions, and to prevent loss of compartments. The commenter
explained that a typical pressure relief device used in carbon black
production does not seal 100 percent, but that the process emits very
small amounts of HAP, and single bag failure results in emissions that
lead to opacity exceedances.
We evaluated the commenter's concerns and request for exemption
from closed vent system inspection requirements for specified pressure
relief devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of
catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Based on safety
concerns and technology considerations, we have included provisions in
the final NESHAP that exempt pressure relief devices that meet
specified criteria (i.e., devices used to protect against overpressure
in the case of catastrophic failure of the process filter system) from
the closed vent system inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.983(b) and
(c). The final NESHAP require that exempted pressure relief devices
meeting criteria specified in the NESHAP be identified in your
Notification of Compliance Status report.
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Applicability
A question arose concerning the potential installation of
cogeneration technology at carbon black plants which would recover
waste heat and gas for use as a fuel input for power generation. This
technology could potentially be used to meet the HAP control
requirements of the NESHAP. However, cogeneration may result in
NOX emissions during normal operation. If NOX
emission increases are great enough, they may trigger the need for
preconstruction permits under the nonattainment new source review (NSR)
or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. It is
possible, however, that we could consider the application of
cogeneration technology to be a pollution control project (PCP), as
defined within the context of PSD and NSR, such that cogeneration
facilities installed as a result of the NESHAP would qualify for an
exemption from NSR/PSD.
In 1992, we adopted an explicit PCP exclusion for electric utility
steam generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July 1, 1994, guidance
memorandum, we provided guidance to permitting authorities on the
approvability of PCP exclusions for source categories other than
electric utilities. In that guidance (available at http://www.epa.gov/rgytgrnj/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pcpguide.pdf), we indicated
that add-on controls and fuel switches to less polluting fuels may
qualify for an exclusion from major NSR as a PCP. To be eligible to be
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must,
on balance, be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting
authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to
a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or
PSD increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality
related values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting reductions
are secured in the case of a project which would result in a
significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting
authority can make these determinations outside of the major NSR
process. The 1994 guidance did not supercede existing NSR requirements,
including approved State NSR programs, nor void or create an exclusion
from any applicable minor source preconstruction review requirements in
an approved State implementation plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting
requirements in a SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any
exclusion from major NSR that might be approved for a source under the
PCP exclusion policy.
We believe that the current guidance on the PCP exclusion
adequately provides for the possible exemption from major NSR for
cogeneration technology resulting from the NESHAP. Permitting
authorities should follow that guidance to the extent allowed under the
applicable SIP in order to determine whether the installation of
cogeneration technology in a given circumstance qualifies as a PCP.
Projects that qualify for the exclusion would be covered under minor
source regulations in the applicable SIP, and permitting authorities
would be expected to provide adequate safeguards against NAAQS and
increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal Class I
areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse impacts cannot be
resolved through the minor NSR programs or other mechanisms would major
NSR apply.
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
Environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were estimated
for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP. No changes have been made
to the provisions for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
operations, or equipment leaks that would affect these estimates. The
changes that were made
[[Page 46264]]
to the waste and heat exchange system requirements did not materially
change the estimated impacts. The changes generally refined the NESHAP
provisions and made them consistent with the basis of the original
estimates; therefore, the impacts estimates have not been revised.
Specifically, the original estimates of impacts associated with
heat exchange system requirements were estimated to be minimal because
the proposed NESHAP would have required monthly monitoring which is
already being performed by most facilities. As pointed out by several
comments, most facilities are not testing at the inlet and outlet of
each heat exchanger, as required in the proposed NESHAP, and such a
requirement would result in increased compliance costs. However, this
requirement has been removed from the NESHAP, making the requirements
consistent with the basis of the original impacts assessment.
Although the requirements for waste have been significantly
revised, they remain consistent with the basis for the original impacts
assessment. The original assessment was based on the assumption that
facilities with a total annual benzene (TAB) quantity less than 10 Mg/
yr would have to add equipment to manage and treat waste streams. The
revised waste requirements maintain this requirement. For facilities
with a TAB quantity greater than 10 Mg/yr, the majority of comments
regarding the impacts estimated for waste concerned the fact that costs
were not included for facilities that will have to add equipment to
manage and treat streams that were previously uncontrolled due to a
compliance option. The revised NESHAP allow facilities to use the
compliance options; therefore, it is not necessary to revise the
impacts assessment.
The estimates of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts,
which have not been revised, are presented in detail in the preamble
for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP (65 FR 76433, December 6,
2000). In summary, it is estimated that the NESHAP will decrease HAP
emissions by 60 percent or 992 Mg/yr (1,090 tpy) and VOC emissions by
64 percent or 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 tpy). The annual cost (including
amortized capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and recovery
credits) is estimated to range from $7,600 per year for facilities
already managing and treating their waste according to the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP to $1.3 million per year for facilities with a
TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr that are not currently subject to the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements to manage and treat waste
streams. No adverse economic impact is expected and no significant
adverse non-air health, environmental, or energy impacts are expected
to result from compliance with the ethylene production NESHAP.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
Comments on the proposed NESHAP were received from ten different
entities. A comprehensive summary of public comments can be found in
the document entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants--Ethylene Production, Background Information Document for
Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' (the
ethylene production NESHAP BID). The BID contains summaries of all of
the comments received with corresponding responses that describe all of
the changes that have been made to the NESHAP.
The most significant comments concerned three emission types:
waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks. These comments also
resulted in the most significant changes to the proposed NESHAP. The
following sections summarize the comments received and changes that
have been made regarding waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment
leaks.
1. Waste Operations
Several commenters disagreed with the determination of MACT for
waste for a variety of reasons. Generally, commenters argued that the
MACT floor should be based on the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. As
such, commenters viewed our proposed requirements as more stringent
than the MACT floor, which they stated are not justified. Commenters
mainly disagreed with the fact that the proposed waste requirements did
not include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options, the 10 Mg/yr TAB
quantity applicability cut-off, and applicability and treatment
requirements based on benzene. We considered each of the specific
issues and came to the conclusions discussed in the following sections.
Compliance options. At proposal, we determined that the standard
requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represented the
MACT floor for both new and existing ethylene sources. The standard
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements state that facilities with
10 Mg/yr or greater TAB quantity must control waste streams that have
flow rates of at least 0.02 liters per minute (lpm), wastewater
quantities of at least 10 Mg/yr, and benzene concentrations of at least
10 parts per million by weight (ppmw). In addition to the standard
control requirements, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP includes
three compliance options that allow a facility to chose which streams
to manage and treat as long as certain conditions are met: either the
TAB quantity for the untreated waste streams cannot exceed 2 Mg/yr, the
facility TAB quantity for treated and untreated process wastewater
streams is less than 1 Mg/yr, or the facility TAB quantity for all
waste streams with at least 10 percent water content is less than 6 Mg/
yr. These options are referred to as the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options. The waste or wastewater streams that can be exempted from
management and treatment vary with the different compliance options.
Details of these compliance options are specified in 40 CFR 61.342(c),
(d), and (e) of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Commenters disagreed with the fact that the compliance options were
not included in the waste requirements for the proposed Ethylene
Production NESHAP. Generally, the commenters argued that the compliance
options have been found to be equivalent to the standard requirements
of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, through development of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the waste standards for the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP and, therefore, should be included. The
commenters also noted that three of the five best performing facilities
are using a compliance option.
Since proposal of the Ethylene Production NESHAP, we have obtained
information on which facilities are using compliance options and what
streams they are controlling. Our general finding is that, regardless
of how a facility is complying with the Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP, facilities typically control continuous streams, and facilities
tend not to control intermittent streams. Examples of streams that are
typically not controlled are samples and maintenance waste (both during
normal operations and turn-arounds). The fact that the same types of
streams are typically being controlled, regardless of whether a
facility is complying with the standard requirements or a compliance
option, supports the finding that the 1, 2 and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options are equivalent to the standard Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
requirements (and to each other) in the level of control achieved at
ethylene production facilities. Therefore, we have determined that it
is appropriate to include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr
[[Page 46265]]
compliance options in the Ethylene Production NESHAP.
10 Mg/yr applicability cut-off. Under the proposed NESHAP, all
ethylene production facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions,
including those with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr, would have been
required to comply with the waste management and treatment
requirements. Facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr are not
currently required to comply with the management and treatment
requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Commenters argued
that because the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represents the floor,
the 10 Mg/yr applicability cut-off should be included in the Ethylene
Production NESHAP. Commenters cited the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP as
a precedent, noting that the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP was
determined to represent the MACT floor for waste control at petroleum
refineries and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP does not require control
of waste at sources with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
Review of the practices in use at the five best performing ethylene
production facilities (representing 12 percent of the industry) shows
that four of the five are subject to and, therefore, are assumed to be
complying with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP. Only one of the best performing facilities is
not required to comply with the management and treatment requirements
of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP because the TAB quantity for the
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr. Exempting facilities with a TAB
quantity less than 10 Mg/yr from management and treatment requirements
would not reflect the level of control achieved by the average of the
five best-performing facilities.
We have determined that the MACT floor for waste includes the
management and treatment of waste streams from ethylene production,
regardless of a facility's TAB quantity. However, using the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP stream applicability requirements to determine
which streams must be controlled at facilities with a TAB quantity less
than 10 Mg/yr may not be appropriate. The 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options are not appropriate because their use at a facility with a TAB
quantity less than 10 Mg/yr could result in no waste streams being
controlled. For example, the 6 Mg/yr option allows a facility to choose
which streams to manage and treat as long as the TAB quantity for all
streams is less than 6 Mg/yr. If the TAB quantity for the facility is
already 6 Mg/yr or less, no streams would have to be managed and
treated, which is not consistent with the MACT floor level of control.
Requiring facilities to comply with the standard requirements of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP would also not be appropriate because
it may require the facilities to treat intermittent streams which are
generally not controlled by the best-performing facilities that form
the basis of the MACT floor determination.
We have determined that the most appropriate way to require
facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr to achieve the level
of control achieved by the best-performing facilities is to specify the
streams that must be controlled. Data received since proposal indicate
that the best performing ethylene facilities control two types of
streams as part of their Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP compliance
strategy: (1) Spent caustic streams (wastes from the caustic washing
process to remove sulfur compounds and other contaminants from the
process stream), and (2) dilution steam blowdown streams (condensed
steam used to quench the cracked gas condensates). We have determined
that it is appropriate to apply the flow rate and concentration control
applicability cut-offs in the standard requirements of the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP to these streams. The best-performing
facilities are generally not controlling intermittent streams.
Based on this information, the Ethylene Production NESHAP have been
revised to require that facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/
yr manage and treat, according to the requirements of the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP, each spent caustic and dilution steam blowdown waste
stream with a benzene concentration greater than or equal to 10 ppmw, a
flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 lpm, and an annual wastewater
quantity greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr. The control requirements
for these streams apply at all times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), if the SSM precludes the ability to
comply and the facility follows the provisions of their SSM plan.
Benzene as a surrogate. One modification made to the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP requirements for the proposed Ethylene Production
NESHAP waste requirements was to base the requirements on total HAP
rather than benzene. For example, in the standard requirements of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, a stream containing less than 10 ppmw
of benzene is not required to be managed and treated. Under the
proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP, streams containing less than 10
ppmw total HAP would not have been required to be managed and treated.
Similarly, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP require streams to be
treated to reduce benzene to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent while the
proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would have required streams to be
treated to reduce total HAP to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent.
Several commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to base
applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP rather than
benzene. Commenters argued that because they are currently treating
wastes based on benzene concentration, the requirement to treat wastes
based on total HAP concentration is an above-the-floor option. The
commenters stated that existing treatment systems are not likely to be
capable of treating to the more stringent standards based on total HAP.
Commenters stated that although the additional costs would be
significant, the additional emission reductions would be minimal
because benzene is generally an appropriate surrogate for HAP, and
little additional emission reduction would be achieved.
Our original intent in proposing stream applicability and treatment
requirements on total HAP content rather than benzene content was to
ensure that streams containing HAP other than benzene are treated and
controlled. We maintain that because compliance with the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP represents the MACT floor and results in control of
HAP other than benzene, the MACT floor includes control of HAP other
than benzene. However, we have determined that it is not necessary to
base stream applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP to
ensure that all HAP are managed and treated. Information obtained
through survey responses and comments shows that, with few exceptions,
all of the waste streams from ethylene production units that contain
HAP contain benzene. According to commenters (Docket A-98-22), of all
the waste streams generated by 33 ethylene manufacturing production
units, only two do not contain benzene but contain other HAP. One
stream is generated from a reflux drum on a debutanizer column. The
stream contains 1,3-butadiene and has a flow rate of 2 gallons per
minute. The other stream is an intermittent stream that is generated
during turnarounds that contains naphthalene. Applying the finding that
the best-performing
[[Page 46266]]
facilities generally control continuous streams but not intermittent
streams, either due to flow rate and concentration cut-offs or use of a
compliance option, we have determined that controlling the continuous
1,3-butadiene stream, but not the naphthalene turnaround stream, is
consistent with the MACT floor. To ensure that continuous streams that
contain HAP other than benzene are controlled, while at the same time
minimizing the burden of identifying these streams, we are specifically
requiring management and treatment of waste streams that contain
greater than or equal to 10 ppmw of 1,3-butadiene. To ensure that this
requirement does not result in the control of intermittent streams that
are generally not controlled, the flow rate applicability cutoffs for
benzene-containing streams (0.02 lpm or 10 Mg/yr wastewater quantity)
also applies to the butadiene streams.
We have determined that it is not necessary to express the
treatment requirements in terms of total HAP. We agree with commenters
that treatment and control devices used to remove or destroy benzene
will remove and destroy the other HAP regulated by this rule to
approximately the same level. Benzene can be used as a surrogate to
determine treatment and control efficiencies. If no benzene is present
in a regulated stream, another HAP (such as 1,3-butadiene) must be used
to show that treatment and control efficiencies required for benzene
are achieved for that HAP. In such cases, compliance can also be
demonstrated by routing the stream to a control device that is being
used to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Off-site waste treatment. Some facilities send their regulated
wastes off-site for treatment by another entity. The proposed rule
specified that wastes must not be transferred unless the transferee has
submitted to EPA a certification that they will manage and treat the
waste in accordance with the rule and that they accept the
responsibility for compliance. Several commenters stated that the
certification requirements should be deleted.
The final rule retains the certification requirements. The
discharger has the ultimate responsibility for assuring that waste
transferred to another party for off-site treatment is treated in
conformity with the applicable standard. The transferee is acting as
the agent of the discharger when it accepts responsibility for treating
the waste. The provisions in the proposal requiring certification by
the transferee are less onerous for the discharger than the only
practicable alternative, which would require that the discharger
actively supervise the activities of the offsite treatment facility.
The certification provisions are similar to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G (the Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and will pose no
unreasonable burden on the generators or receivers of the waste.
2. Heat Exchange Systems
Sampling location. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP included
requirements to sample cooling water at the inlet and outlet of each
heat exchanger for the presence of compounds that indicate a leak.
Sampling at each heat exchanger was required to address the fact that
cooling water circulation rates through ethylene production units tend
to be relatively high. Obtaining only one inlet and outlet sample for
the entire system (for example, at the cooling tower) could result in a
leak not being detected because the concentration of the leaked
compound could be lower that the detection limit of the testing method
used.
Several commenters argued that the requirement does not reflect the
floor level of control, stating that none of the best-performing
facilities are required to test at the inlet and outlet of every heat
exchanger. These commenters argued that such a requirement would be an
above-the-floor option that is not cost effective. Several commenters
provided estimates of the additional costs associated with sampling and
testing at each heat exchanger. The estimated annualized costs provided
by the commenters ranged from $60,000 to $1.2 million per year for a
single ethylene production unit.
One commenter suggested an approach for addressing the circulation
rate issue. The commenter based the suggestion on the assumptions that:
(1) The requirements of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP result in an
adequate level of leak detection, and (2) the circulation rate of
cooling water through an ethylene production unit is eight times the
circulation rate through a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. Using these
assumptions, the 1 ppmw leak definition of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
and the average of circulation rates reported for ethylene units in
survey responses, the commenter estimated that a 6.35 pound per hour
(lb/hr) leak rate would be detected at a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit.
The commenter suggested allowing facilities to decide where to test for
leaks with the condition that a leak of this magnitude would be
detected. The commenter stated that such a requirement would ensure a
level of performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and
would provide facilities flexibility to tailor a monitoring program to
their unique circumstances. The commenter explained that one facility
may choose to sample the combined cooling water flow from many heat
exchangers using a test method with a relatively low detection limit,
while another may sample the flow from fewer exchangers using a higher
detection limit.
Based on information provided by commenters, we agree that
requiring testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger does
not represent the floor level of control. We find that the suggestion
to allow facilities to develop a site-specific sampling plan based on
performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP would represent
the floor. We have reviewed and agree with the commenter's suggested
approach for establishing the floor level sampling plan based on a
specified leak detection limit, with one exception. We adjusted the
calculation to correct an error in calculating the average circulation
rate, which resulted in a leak rate that must be detected of 6.75 lb/
hr. Going beyond the floor to the proposed testing requirement would
impose costs that are unreasonable given the small emissions reductions
that would be achieved. The final rule allows the use of any sampling
location plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect a leak rate of
6.75 lb/hr.
Monitoring frequency. Commenters expressed concern that the
proposed rule did not allow reduced heat exchanger monitoring frequency
for sustained good performance, which is allowed in other LDAR
programs. One of the commenters suggested that we adopt the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP requirements for heat exchanges, which start with
monthly monitoring and then allow quarterly monitoring. We agree with
these comments in general. The floor for heat exchangers is an LDAR
program with monthly monitoring. We recognize, however, that the
emission performance of LDAR programs is variable and is influenced by
a number of site-specific factors. We believe that providing an
incentive in the final rule for reduced monitoring will encourage
facilities to undertake measures to diagnose the causes of leaks and
reduce the frequency of occurrence. Accordingly, the final rule
includes a provision for reduced monitoring for units with sustained
good performance in preventing leaks. This provision is generally
consistent with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, and we believe it is
[[Page 46267]]
equivalent to the floor and will provide an incentive for greater
emissions reductions while minimizing monitoring burden.
The final rule requires monthly monitoring for the first 6 months.
If no leaks are detected during this period, then the monitoring
frequency changes to quarterly. If a leak is subsequently detected,
then monthly monitoring is required until the leak is repaired. After
the leak is repaired, then monthly monitoring is required for 6 months.
If no leaks occur during this period, the monitoring frequency returns
to quarterly.
Repair requirements. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would
have required a leak to be repaired within 15 days of being detected.
Commenters stated that the best-performing facilities are not required
to repair leaks within 15 days so this is an above-the-floor option.
Commenters provided detailed comments on the steps and costs involved
in repairing heat exchangers.
Our original intent in requiring repair in 15 days was to provide
consistency with the repair requirements for other leaking components.
Through the comments received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we
have learned that repairing heat exchangers is different than repairing
other types of leaking components. According to commenters, to repair a
heat exchanger, it must be shut down, isolated from the process,
cleaned, opened, tested to find the leak(s), and repaired. The
commenters added that removing an exchanger from service often requires
a unit to be shutdown. Commenters provided the contrasting example of a
leaking valve, for which packing and flange bolts can often simply be
tightened externally or, in extreme cases, can be externally pumped
with a sealant or clamped to repair. Based on the information received
in response to the proposed NESHAP, we agree that the 15-day repair
period is more stringent than the floor and that the more stringent
requirement is not reasonable because it does not allow adequate time
for repair. We have determined that a 45-day repair period represents
the floor. This is the repair period allowed by the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP. In addition to extending the repair period to 45 days, we have
revised the repair and delay of repair provisions to be consistent with
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
3. Equipment Leaks
The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP required connector
monitoring. Commenters disagreed with the approach EPA used to
determine the MACT floor, stating that HAP emissions from uncontrolled
connectors are overestimated due to an inaccurate emission factor. One
commenter (Docket A-98-22) provided an alternate emission factor based
on data that they gathered from ethylene production units. According to
the commenter, when their emission factor is used in the MACT floor
analysis, it results in a different five best-performing facilities, of
which only two perform connector monitoring. Commenters asserted that
connector monitoring is, therefore, not part of the floor. In addition,
one commenter explained that their study shows that there is no
statistically significant difference between the average emission rates
for connectors being monitored for the first time and those that are
monitored as part of a continuing monitoring program. Commenters also
provided cost data to show that some facilities will incur high costs
to monitor connectors with no statistically measurable emissions
benefit.
Due to uncertainties regarding connector emission factors used in
the original MACT floor analysis, we performed an analysis using an
emission factor provided by a commenter; however, this does not mean
that we have accepted the commenter's emissions factor as a more
accurate estimator of connector emissions (Docket A-98-22). The
objective of the analyses was to determine the impact using different
connector emission factors would have on which facilities are
determined to be the five best-performing sources. Although this
analysis resulted in a slightly different five best-performing sources,
the floor was the same, since three of the five facilities are
monitoring connectors. Through this analysis, we have concluded that,
regardless of the emission factor used, the majority of the best-
performing facilities are performing connector monitoring.
We also conducted a study of the existing permits at certain
facilities that had adopted permit conditions requiring 100 percent
connector monitoring annually in exchange for emissions credits to be
used for operational flexibility. In setting the MACT floor we found
our knowledge of existing permit conditions compelling in terms of
emissions benefits and therefore relevant in establishing the MACT
floor. Certainly any monitoring worthy of conducting for the purpose of
obtaining emissions credits was beneficial beyond cost.
Based on these analyses, we conclude that connector monitoring is
part of the MACT floor. We do not believe that the available data
support the commenters' conclusion that connector monitoring should not
be included in the MACT floor. However, in consideration of the data
submitted by the industry, we elected to require compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks,
which requires connector monitoring, but also allows for reduced
monitoring frequency for good performance instead of annual monitoring.
This provides the opportunity to reduce monitoring costs in cases where
a low proportion of connectors are leaking. In offering a performance-
based requirement for connector monitoring, we also have provided some
consistency in approach with the heat exchanger and other equipment
monitoring provisions.
VI. Spandex Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
There are no additional emissions reductions achieved by the final
NESHAP. The level of control required by the final NESHAP is already in
place at the two affected reaction spinning facilities.
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total estimated annual compliance cost of the final NESHAP is
$78,040. This estimate includes annualized capital costs for monitoring
equipment purchased. Annual costs also include monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs. Costs were not included for control
equipment since this is already in place at the two reaction spinning
process facilities.
The capital costs are estimated to be $32,820 (in 1998 dollars).
The capital costs are for purchase of thermocouples and liquid flow
transducers for CPMS equipment and closed vent systems leak detection
monitors. These costs are more than likely an overestimate because the
two affected facilities already have monitors on their carbon
adsorbers.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of the spandex production facilities to the final NESHAP and
to determine the economic effects that may result from the final
NESHAP. The Spandex Production source category contains five
facilities, but only the two facilities that use the reaction spinning
process are affected by the final
[[Page 46268]]
NESHAP. These potentially affected facilities are owned by one company.
Spandex fiber production leads to potential HAP emissions from
fiber spinning lines, storage tanks, and process vents; however, the
emission sources are well controlled by the affected spandex
manufacturing facilities. The mandated levels of control are met at
these sources; therefore, no costs for additional add-on air pollution
control equipment are expected to be incurred by the spandex facilities
to comply with the final NESHAP. Instead, the compliance costs for the
final NESHAP relate primarily to monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping activities. The estimated total annualized cost for the
final NESHAP is $78,040, which represents less than 0.01 percent of the
revenues of the companies that own the spandex manufacturing
facilities. The final NESHAP are, therefore, expected to have a
negligible impact on the Spandex Production source category.
The economic impacts at the facility and company levels are
measured by comparing the annualized compliance cost for each entity to
its revenues. A cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and then is
multiplied by 100 to convert the ratio into percentages. For the final
NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent is determined to be
an initial indicator of the potential for a significant facility
impact. Revenues at the facility level are not available, therefore
estimated facility revenues received from the sale of spandex fiber are
used. Both affected facilities are expected to incur positive
compliance costs. The ratio of costs to estimated revenues range from a
low of 0.22 percent to a high of 0.35 percent. Thus, on average, the
economic impact of the final NESHAP is minimal for the facilities
producing spandex fibers.
The share of compliance costs to company sales are calculated to
determine company level impacts. One company owns the two affected
facilities, so only one firm faces positive compliance costs from the
final NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company revenues is 0.10 percent.
At the company level, the final NESHAP are not anticipated to have a
significant economic impact on companies that own and operate the
spandex fiber facilities. For more information, consult the economic
impact analysis report entitled, Economic Impact Analysis: Spandex
Production, which is in the docket for the spandex source category.
4. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse
environmental or energy impacts associated with the final NESHAP. The
industry's baseline level of control is high, and the level of control
required by the final NESHAP is currently being achieved for the
emission point types. Environmental impacts from the application of the
control or recovery devices proposed for the Spandex Production source
category are also expected to be minimal for secondary air pollutants.
In general, we determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set
at the level of control in absence of the final NESHAP.
There is no incremental increase in emissions related to water
pollution or solid waste as a result of the final NESHAP.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
Comments on the proposed Spandex Production NESHAP were received
from two different entities: the Institute of Clean Air Companies
(ICAC) and Dupont. A summary and response to the general comments
submitted can be found in Docket A-98-25.
Dupont's comments expressed concern that because the dry spinning
spandex production process was not mentioned in the proposal, this
could be interpreted as no standard for this source category and, as a
result, these facilities would be subject to a case-by-case MACT
determination. The discussion of this comment can be found in direct
final amendments that are being published separately in this issue of
the Federal Register.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a final regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The 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 obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more and is therefore not subject to OMB 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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule.
The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The
FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
[[Page 46269]]
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from its federalism official stating that EPA has met the requirements
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final rule 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. No
facilities subject to the final rule are owned by State or local
governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any
direct compliance costs resulting from the final rule. Furthermore, EPA
is directed to develop the final rule by section 112 of the CAA. Thus,
the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to
the final rule.
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.''
The final 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 the final rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, 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 EPA.
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. Today's final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it establishes an
environmental standard based on technology, not health or safety risk.
No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, today's final rule has been determined
not to be ``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, EPA
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 an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $22.2 million per year. The final rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
We have determined that the final 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.
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 us to give special consideration to the
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we determine 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 the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined differently for the four
source categories for which we are proposing standards. Based on those
definitions, there are no small entities affected by the final rule.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we have determined that
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's final rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No.
[[Page 46270]]
1893.03) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U.S.
EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by
e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. 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.
Information is required to ensure compliance with the final rule.
If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA would
not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the rule.
In addition, EPA's authority to take administrative action would be
reduced significantly.
The final rule requires owners or operators of affected sources to
retain records for a period of 5 years. The 5-year retention period is
consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and with the
5-year record retention requirement in the operating permit program
under title V of the CAA.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the final rule are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is
made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, ``Confidentiality of Business Information.''
The EPA expects the final rule to affect a total of 75 facilities
over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that no new facilities will
become subject to the rule during each of the first 3 years. The EPA
expects 75 existing facilities to be affected by the final rule, and
these existing facilities will begin complying in the third year.
The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after
promulgation of the rule for the industries and the implementing agency
is outlined below. You can find the details of this information
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No.
1893.03,'' in Docket No. A-97-17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating and
Affected entity Total hours Labor costs Capital costs Maintenance Total costs
(10 3$) (10 3$) costs (10 3$) (10 3$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 33,926 1,510 4,901 16 6,427
Implementing agency............. 3,465 117 0 0 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
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.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 27, 316, and 320. Consistent with the
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 27, and
316. Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable
alternatives to EPA test methods and procedures and are cited in the
final rule.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses, is cited in the final rule for its manual method for
measuring the oxygen content of exhaust gas. Part 10 of ASME PTC 19-10-
1981 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases described below for
inclusion in the rule in addition to EPA Methods. Similar to EPA's
performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also a performance-based
method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However, ASTM
D6420-99 was written to support the specific use of highly portable and
automated GC/MS. While offering advantages over the traditional Method
18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent criteria for
accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 18. Therefore, ASTM
D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 where: (1) The target
compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the
target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100
ppmv.
For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, but
potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99
and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does
not apply.
[[Page 46271]]
The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D1946-90 (2000), Standard
Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography, is an
acceptable method for measuring process vent emissions of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen for the purposes of the final rule.
The search and review results have been documented and are placed
in the Generic MACT docket (Docket No. A-97-17).
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States, prior to publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and, therefore, will be effective
on July 12, 2002.
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart XX to read as
follows:
Subpart XX--National Emission Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing
Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations
Sec.
Introduction
63.1080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1081 When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?
Definitions
63.1082 What definitions do I need to know?
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1083 Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?
63.1084 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the requirements
of this subpart?
Heat Exchange System Requirements
63.1085 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1086 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak is detected?
63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what
actions must I take for delay of repair?
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1089 What records must I keep?
63.1090 What reports must I submit?
Background for Waste Requirements
63.1091 What do the waste requirements do?
63.1092 What are the major differences between the requirements of
40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene
production sources?
Applicability for Waste Requirements
63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?
63.1094 What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of this
subpart?
Waste Requirements
63.1095 What specific requirements must I comply with?
63.1096 What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste
off-site?
Implementation and Enforcement
63.1097 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Tables to Subpart XX of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart XX of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 2 to Subpart XX of Part 63--Requirements of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart FF, Not Included in the Requirements for This Subpart and
Alternate Requirements
Introduction
Sec. 63.1080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes requirements for controlling emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange systems and waste
streams at new and existing ethylene production units.
Sec. 63.1081 When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?
You must comply with the requirements of this subpart according to
the schedule specified in Sec. 63.1102(a).
Definitions
Sec. 63.1082 What definitions do I need to know?
(a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of this section, definitions
for terms used in this subpart are provided in the Clean Air Act,
Sec. 63.1103(e), and 40 CFR 61.341.
(b) The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart:
Continuous butadiene waste stream means the continuously flowing
process wastewater from the following equipment: The aqueous drain from
the debutanizer reflux drum, water separators on the C4 crude butadiene
transfer piping, and the C4 butadiene storage equipment; and spent wash
water from the C4 crude butadiene carbonyl wash system. The continuous
butadiene waste stream does not include butadiene streams generated
from sampling, maintenance activities, or shutdown purges. The
continuous butadiene waste stream does not include butadiene streams
from equipment that is currently an affected source subject to the
control requirements of another NESHAP. The continuous butadiene waste
stream contains less than 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of
benzene.
Dilution steam blowdown waste stream means any continuously flowing
process wastewater stream resulting from the quench and compression of
cracked gas (the cracking furnace effluent) at an ethylene production
unit and is discharged from the unit. This stream typically includes
the aqueous or oily-water stream that results from condensation of
dilution steam (in the cracking furnace quench system), blowdown from
dilution steam generation systems, and aqueous streams separated from
the process between the cracking furnace and the
[[Page 46272]]
cracked gas dehydrators. The dilution steam blowdown waste stream does
not include dilution steam blowdown streams generated from sampling,
maintenance activities, or shutdown purges. The dilution steam blowdown
waste stream also does not include blowdown that has not contacted HAP-
containing process materials.
Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through
cooling water system (e.g., river or pond water). A heat exchange
system can include more than one heat exchanger and can include an
entire recirculating or once-through cooling system.
Process wastewater means water which comes in contact with benzene
or butadiene during manufacturing or processing operations conducted
within an ethylene production unit. Process wastewater is not organic
wastes, process fluids, product tank drawdown, cooling water blowdown,
steam trap condensate, or landfill leachate. Process wastewater
includes direct-contact cooling water.
Spent caustic waste stream means the continuously flowing process
wastewater stream that results from the use of a caustic wash system in
an ethylene production unit. A caustic wash system is commonly used at
ethylene production units to remove acid gases and sulfur compounds
from process streams, typically cracked gas. The spent caustic waste
stream does not include spent caustic streams generated from sampling,
maintenance activities, or shutdown purges.
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1083 Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?
The provisions of this subpart apply to your heat exchange system
if you own or operate an ethylene production unit expressly referenced
to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part. The provisions of
subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply to this
subpart except as specified in subpart YY of this part.
Sec. 63.1084 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the
requirements of this subpart?
Your heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in
Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086 if it meets any one of the criteria in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Your heat exchange system operates with the minimum pressure on
the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum
pressure on the process side.
(b) Your heat exchange system contains an intervening cooling
fluid, containing less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP listed in
Table 1 to this subpart, between the process and the cooling water.
This intervening fluid must serve to isolate the cooling water from the
process fluid and must not be sent through a cooling tower or
discharged. For purposes of this section, discharge does not include
emptying for maintenance purposes.
(c) The once-through heat exchange system is subject to a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with an allowable
discharge limit of 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) or less above
influent concentration, or 10 percent or less above influent
concentration, whichever is greater.
(d) Your once-through heat exchange system is subject to a NPDES
permit that meets all of the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) The permit requires monitoring of a parameter or condition to
detect a leak of process fluids to cooling water.
(2) The permit specifies the normal range of the parameter or
condition.
(3) The permit requires monthly or more frequent monitoring for the
parameters selected as leak indicators.
(4) The permit requires you to report and correct leaks to the
cooling water when the parameter or condition exceeds the normal range.
(e) Your recirculating or once-through heat exchange system cools
process fluids that contain less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP
listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
Heat Exchange System Requirements
Sec. 63.1085 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Unless you meet one of the requirements for exemptions in
Sec. 63.1084, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section.
(a) Monitor the cooling water for the presence of substances that
indicate a leak according to Sec. 63.1086.
(b) If you detect a leak, repair it according to Sec. 63.1087
unless repair is delayed according to Sec. 63.1088.
(c) Keep the records specified in Sec. 63.1089.
(d) Submit the reports specified in Sec. 63.1090.
Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1086 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
You must monitor for leaks to cooling water by monitoring each heat
exchange system according to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, monitoring each heat exchanger according to the requirements
of paragraph (b) of this section, or monitoring a surrogate parameter
according to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. If you
elect to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, you may use alternatives in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
section for determining the mean entrance concentration.
(a) Heat exchange system. Monitor cooling water in each heat
exchange system for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart (either
total or speciated) or other representative substances (e.g., total
organic carbon or volatile organic compounds (VOC)) that indicate the
presence of a leak according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) You define the equipment that comprises each heat exchange
system. For the purposes of implementing paragraph (a) of this section,
a heat exchange system may consist of an entire heat exchange system or
any combinations of heat exchangers such that, based on the rate of
cooling water at the entrance and exit to each heat exchange system and
the sensitivity of the test method being used, a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or
greater of the HAP in Table 1 to this subpart would be detected. For
example, if the test you decide to use has a sensitivity of 1 ppmv for
total HAP, you must define the heat exchange system so that the cooling
water flow rate is 51,031 liters per minute or less so that a leak of
3.06 kg/hr can be detected.
(2) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water
as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Monitor heat
exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in either
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month
period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at
new sources.
(3) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the
heat
[[Page 46273]]
exchange system cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part
136. Use the same method for both entrance and exit samples. You may
validate 40 CFR part 136 methods for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this
subpart according to the procedures in appendix D to this part.
Alternative methods may be used upon approval by the Administrator.
(4) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each entrance and
exit.
(5) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations,
correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if
applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level
of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 10 percent
greater than the entrance mean, or a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or greater of
the HAP (total or speciated) in Table 1 to this subpart or other
representative substance into the cooling water is detected, you have
detected a leak.
(b) Individual heat exchangers. Monitor the cooling water at the
entrance and exit of each heat exchanger for the HAP in Table 1 to this
subpart (either total or speciated) or other representative substances
(e.g., total organic carbon or VOC) that indicate the presence of a
leak in a heat exchanger according to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water
as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. Monitor each heat
exchanger at new sources according to the specifications in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month
period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchangers at new
sources.
(2) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the
cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part 136, as long as
the method is sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 ppmv. Use the
same method for both entrance and exit samples. Validation of 40 CFR
part 136 methods for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart may be
determined according to the provisions of appendix D to this part.
Alternative methods may be used upon approval by the Administrator.
(3) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each heat exchanger
entrance and exit.
(4) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations,
correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if
applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level
of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 1 ppmv or
10 percent greater than the entrance mean, whichever is greater, you
have detected a leak.
(c) Surrogate parameters. You may elect to comply with the
requirements of this section by monitoring using a surrogate indicator
of leaks, provided that you comply with the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section. Surrogate indicators that could be
used to develop an acceptable monitoring program are ion specific
electrode monitoring, pH, conductivity, or other representative
indicators.
(1) You shall prepare and implement a monitoring plan that
documents the procedures that will be used to detect leaks of process
fluids into cooling waters. The plan shall require monitoring of one or
more process parameters or other conditions that indicate a leak.
Monitoring that is already being conducted for other purposes may be
used to satisfy the requirements of this section. The plan shall
include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) A description of the parameter or condition to be monitored and
an explanation of how the selected parameter or condition will reliably
indicate the presence of a leak.
(ii) The parameter level(s) or condition(s) that shall constitute a
leak. This shall be documented by data or calculations showing that the
selected levels or conditions will reliably identify leaks. The
monitoring must be sufficiently sensitive to determine the range of
parameter levels or conditions when the system is not leaking. When the
selected parameter level or condition is outside that range, you have
detected a leak.
(iii) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling
water as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. Monitor
heat exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(A)(1) or (c)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) If no leaks are detected, monitor quarterly thereafter until a
leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section.
(B) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at
new sources.
(iv) The records that will be maintained to document compliance
with the requirements of this section.
(2) If a leak is identified by audio, visual, or olfactory
inspection, a method listed in 40 CFR part 136, or any other means
other than those described in the monitoring plan, and the method(s)
specified in the plan could not detect the leak, you shall revise the
plan and document the basis for the changes. You shall complete the
revisions to the plan no later than 180 days after discovery of the
leak.
(3) You shall maintain, at all times, the monitoring plan that is
currently in use. The current plan shall be maintained on-site, or
shall be accessible from a central location by computer or other means
that provide access within 2 hours after a request. If the monitoring
plan is changed, you must retain the most recent superseded plan for at
least 5 years from the date of its creation. The superseded plan shall
be retained on-site or accessible from a central location by computer
or other means that provide access within 2 hours after a request.
(d) Simplifying assumptions for entrance mean concentration. If you
are complying with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may elect
to determine the entrance mean concentration as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Assume that the entrance mean concentration of the monitored
substance is zero; or,
(2) Determine the entrance mean concentration of a monitored
substance at a sampling location anywhere upstream of the heat
exchanger or heat exchange system, provided that there is not a
reasonable opportunity for the concentration to change at the entrance
to each heat exchanger or heat exchange system.
Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak is detected?
If a leak is detected, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a)
[[Page 46274]]
and (b) of this section unless repair is delayed according to
Sec. 63.1088.
(a) Repair the leak as soon as practical but not later than 45
calender days after you received the results of monitoring tests that
indicated a leak. You must repair the leak unless you demonstrate that
the results are due to a condition other than a leak.
(b) Once the leak has been repaired, use the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the repair or
startup, whichever is later, to confirm that the heat exchange system
has been repaired.
Sec. 63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what
actions must I take for delay of repair?
You may delay the repair of heat exchange systems if the leaking
equipment is isolated from the process. You may also delay repair if
repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown, and you meet one
of the conditions in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) If a shutdown is expected within the next 2 months of
determining delay of repair is necessary, you are not required to have
a special shutdown before that planned shutdown.
(b) If a shutdown is not expected within the next 2 months of
determining delay of repair is necessary, you may delay repair if a
shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the potential
emissions from delaying repair until the next shutdown of the process
equipment associated with the leaking heat exchanger. You must document
the basis for the determination that a shutdown for repair would cause
greater emissions than the emissions likely to result from delay of
repair. The documentation process must include the activities in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) State the reason(s) for delaying repair.
(2) Specify a schedule for completing the repair as soon as
practical.
(3) Calculate the potential emissions from the leaking heat
exchanger by multiplying the concentration of HAP listed in Table 1 to
this subpart (or other monitored substances) in the cooling water from
the leaking heat exchanger by the flow rate of the cooling water from
the leaking heat exchanger and by the expected duration of the delay.
(4) Determine emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart
(or other monitored substances) from purging and depressurizing the
equipment that will result from the unscheduled shutdown for the
repair.
(c) If repair is delayed because the necessary equipment, parts or
personnel are not available, you may delay repair a maximum of 120
calendar days. You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts
or personnel were not available.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1089 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.1109(c).
(a) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.1086 that indicate a leak,
the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the basis for
determining there is no leak.
(b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
(c) The method or procedures used to confirm repair of a leak and
the date the repair was confirmed.
(d) Documentation of delay of repair as specified in Sec. 63.1088.
(e) If you validate a 40 CFR part 136 method for the HAP listed in
Table 1 to this subpart according to the procedures in appendix D to
this part, then you must keep a record of the test data and
calculations used in the validation.
Sec. 63.1090 What reports must I submit?
If you delay repair for your heat exchange system, you must report
the delay of repair in the semiannual report required by
Sec. 63.1110(e). If the leak remains unrepaired, you must continue to
report the delay of repair in semiannual reports until you repair the
leak. You must include the information in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section in the semiannual report.
(a) The fact that a leak was detected, and the date that the leak
was detected.
(b) Whether or not the leak has been repaired.
(c) The reasons for delay of repair. If you delayed the repair as
provided in Sec. 63.1088(b), documentation of emissions estimates.
(d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the expected date of repair.
(e) If a leak is repaired, the date the leak was successfully
repaired.
Background for Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1091 What do the waste requirements do?
This subpart requires you to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF, National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations. There are
some differences between the ethylene production waste requirements and
those of subpart FF.
Sec. 63.1092 What are the major differences between the requirements
of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene
production sources?
The major differences between the requirements of 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF, and the requirements for ethylene production sources are
listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to all
ethylene production sources that are part of a major source. The
requirements do not include a provision to exempt sources with a total
annual benzene quantity less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) from
control requirements.
(b) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to
continuous butadiene waste streams which do not contain benzene
quantities that would make them subject to the management and treatment
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
(c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include
the compliance options at 40 CFR 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e) for
sources with a total annual benzene quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
(d) If you transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.1096 rather than 40 CFR 61.342(f).
Applicability for Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?
The waste stream provisions of this subpart apply to your waste
streams if you own or operate an ethylene production facility expressly
referenced to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part. The
provisions of subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply
to this subpart except as specified in a referencing subpart.
Sec. 63.1094 What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of
this subpart?
The types of waste described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section are exempt from this subpart.
(a) Waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from
process fluids.
(b) Waste that is contained in a segregated storm water sewer
system.
Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1095 What specific requirements must I comply with?
For waste that is not transferred off-site, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section for continuous
butadiene waste streams and paragraph (b) of this section for benzene
waste streams. If you
[[Page 46275]]
transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1096.
(a) Continuous butadiene waste streams. Manage and treat continuous
butadiene waste streams that contain greater than or equal to 10 ppmv
1,3-butadiene and have a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 liters
per minute, according to either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section. If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR
61.342(a), the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply
also.
(1) Route the continuous butadiene stream to a treatment process or
wastewater treatment system used to treat benzene waste streams that
complies with the standards specified in 40 CFR 61.348. Comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF; with the changes in Table 2
to this subpart, and as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) Determine the butadiene concentration of the waste stream
according to 40 CFR 61.355(c)(1) through (3), except substitute ``1,3-
butadiene'' for each occurrence of ``benzene.'' You may validate 40 CFR
part 136 methods for 1,3-butadiene according to the procedures in
appendix D to this part. You do not need to determine the butadiene
concentration of a waste stream if you designate that the stream must
be controlled.
(ii) Comply with 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) for each waste
management unit that receives or manages the waste stream prior to and
during treatment or recycling of the waste stream.
(iii) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
61.356(b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), except substitute ``1,3-butadiene'' for
each occurrence of ``benzene'' and ``continuous butadiene waste
stream'' for each occurrence of ``waste stream.''
(iv) Comply with the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 61.357(a),
(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(3)(iii) through (v), and (d)(1) and (2), except
substitute ``1,3-butadiene'' for each occurrence of ``benzene'' and
``continuous butadiene waste stream'' for each occurrence of ``waste
stream.''
(v) Include only the information in 40 CFR 61.357(a)(2) and
(a)(3)(iii) through (v) in the report required in 40 CFR 61.357(a) and
(d)(2).
(2) Comply with the process wastewater requirements of subpart G of
this part. Submit the information required in Sec. 63.146(b) in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.1110(d). Submit
the information required in Sec. 63.146(c) through (e) in either the
Periodic Reports required in Sec. 63.152 or the Periodic Reports
required in Sec. 63.1110(e).
(3) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR
61.342(a), comply with the requirements of this section at all times
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, if the
startup, shutdown, or malfunction precludes the ability of the affected
source to comply with the requirements of this section and the owner or
operator follows the provisions for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.1111.
(b) Benzene waste streams. For benzene-containing streams, you must
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, except as
specified in Table 2 to this subpart. You must manage and treat waste
streams as specified in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR
61.342(a), manage and treat spent caustic waste streams and dilution
steam blowdown waste streams according to 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) through
(c)(3)(i). The requirements of this paragraph (b)(1) shall apply at all
times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, if
the startup, shutdown, or malfunction precludes the ability of the
affected source to comply with the requirements of this section and the
owner or operator follows the provisions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.1111.
(2) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your
facility is greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr, as determined according
to 40 CFR 61.342(a), you must manage and treat waste streams according
to any of the options in 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) through (e).
Sec. 63.1096 What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste
off-site?
If you elect to transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Include a notice with the shipment or transport of each waste
stream. The notice shall state that the waste stream contains organic
HAP that are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of this
subpart. When the transport is continuous or ongoing (for example,
discharge to a publicly-owned treatment works), the notice shall be
submitted to the treatment operator initially and whenever there is a
change in the required treatment.
(b) You may not transfer the waste stream unless the transferee has
submitted to the Administrator a written certification that the
transferee will manage and treat any waste stream received from a
source subject to the requirements of this subpart in accordance with
the requirements of this subpart.
(c) By providing this written certification to the Administrator,
the certifying entity accepts responsibility for compliance with the
regulatory provisions in this subpart with respect to any shipment of
waste covered by the written certification. Failure to abide by any of
those provisions with respect to such shipments may result in
enforcement action by EPA against the certifying entity in accordance
with the enforcement provisions applicable to violations of those
provisions by owners or operators of sources.
(d) The certifying entity may revoke the written certification by
sending a written statement to the Administrator and you. The notice of
revocation must provide at least 90 days notice that the certifying
entity is rescinding acceptance of responsibility for compliance with
the regulatory provisions of this subpart. Upon expiration of the
notice period, you may not transfer the waste stream to that off-site
treatment operation. Written certifications and revocation statements
to the Administrator from the transferees of waste shall be signed by
the responsible official of the certifying entity, provide the name and
address of the certifying entity, and be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office at the addresses listed in 40 CFR 63.13. Such written
certifications are not transferable by the treater to other off-site
waste treatment operators.
Implementation and Enforcement
Sec. 63.1097 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator
has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities
[[Page 46276]]
contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section are retained
by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local,
or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1085, 63.1086 and 63.1095, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Tables to Subpart XX of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart XX of Part 63.--Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous air pollutant CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................................. 71432
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 106990
Cumene.................................................. 98828
Ethyl benzene........................................... 100414
Hexane.................................................. 110543
Naphthalene............................................. 91203
Styrene................................................. 100425
Toluene................................................. 108883
o-Xylene................................................ 95476
m-Xylene................................................ 108383
p-Xylene................................................ 106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart XX of Part 63.--Requirements of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart FF, Not Included in the Requirements for This Subpart and
Alternate Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the total annual benzene
quatity for waste from your Do not comply with: Instead, comply
facility is * * * with:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Less than 10 Mg/yr....... 40 CFR 61.340....... Sec. 63.1093.
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR There is no
61.342(c)(3)(ii), equivalent
(d), and (e). requirement.
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR 61.342(f).... Sec. 61.1096.
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR 61.355(j) and There is no
(k). equivalent
requirement.
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR There is no
61.356(b)(2)(ii), equivalent
(b)(3) through requirement.
(b)(5).
-------------------------------------------
The requirement to The requirement to
submit the submit the
information information
required in 40 CFR required in 40 CFR
61.357(a) to the 61.357(a) as part
Administrator of the Initial
within 90 days Notification
after January 7, required in 40 CFR
1993. 63.1110(c).
-------------------------------------------
The requirement in The requirement to
40 CFR 61.357(d) to submit the
submit the information in 40
information in 40 CFR 61.357(d)(1)
CFR 61.357(d)(1) and (d)(2) for
and (d)(2) if the spent caustic,
TAB quantity from dilution steam
your facility is blowdown, and
equal to or greater continuous
than 10 Mg/yr. butadiene waste
streams.
-------------------------------------------
The requirement in The requirement to
40 CFR 61.357(d)(1) submit the
to submit the information
information required in 40 CFR
required in 40 CFR 61.357(d)(1) as
63.357(d)(1) to the part of the
Administrator Notification of
within 90 days Compliance Status
after January 7, required in 40 CFR
1993. 63.1110(d).
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR 61.357(d)(3) There is no
through (d)(5). equivalent
requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Greater than or equal to 40 CFR 61.340....... Sec. 61.1093.
10 Mg/yr.
-------------------------------------------
40 CFR 61.342(f).... Sec. 61.1096.
-------------------------------------------
The requirement to The requirement to
submit the submit the
information information
required in 40 CFR required in 40 CFR
61.357(a) to the 61.357(a) as part
Administrator of the Initial
within 90 days Notification
after January 7, required in 40 CFR
1993. 63.1110(c).
-------------------------------------------
The requirement in The requirement to
40 CFR 61.357(d) to submit the
submit the information in 40
information in 40 CFR 61.357(d)(1)
CFR 61.357(d)(1) and (d)(2) as part
and (d)(2) if the of the Notification
TAB quantity from of Compliance
your facility is Status required in
equal to or greater 40 CFR 63.1110(d).
than 10 Mg/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46277]]
Subpart SS--[Amended]
3. Section 63.981 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition of Supplemental combustion air to read as follows:
Sec. 63.981 Definitions.
* * * * *
Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to a vent
stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. Air that is
part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of the unit operation
is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to operate
combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental combustion
air. Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic
oxidizers, to include the intermittent addition of air upstream of the
catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the
catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is
not considered to be supplemental combustion air.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.983 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii);
b. Revising the heading for paragraph (b); and
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.983 Closed vent systems.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
is capable of taking periodic readings. Records shall be generated as
specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator shall be
installed at the entrance to any bypass line.
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position
with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. Records shall be
generated as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
(b) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring requirements. * *
*
(4) For each bypass line, the owner or operator shall comply with
paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If a flow indicator is used, take a reading at least once every
15 minutes.
(ii) If the bypass line valve is secured in the non-diverting
position, visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once
every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting
position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.987 is amended by:
a. Revising the definition of Dj in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii); and
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.987 Flare requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
Dj = Concentration of sample component j, in parts per
million by volume on a wet basis, as measured for organics by Method 18
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or by American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D6420-99 (available for purchase from at least one of
the following addresses: 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959; or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb
Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106) under the conditions specified in
Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(D)(1) through (3). Hydrogen and carbon monoxide
are measured by ASTM D1946-90; and
* * * * *
(iii) The actual exit velocity of a flare shall be determined by
dividing the volumetric flow rate (in unit of standard temperature and
pressure), as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, by the unobstructed (free) cross
sectional area of the flare tip.
* * * * *
6. Part 63 is amended by adding Sec. 63.992 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.992 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator
has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a 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 paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.985(a), 63.986(a), 63.987(a),
63.988(a), 63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and 63.995(a) under
Sec. 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the
cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation
provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.997 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) introductory text;
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C)(1);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D);
e. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(E);
f. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) introductory text;
g. Removing and reserving paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(B)(2) and (3); and
h. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F) through (I).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.997 Performance test and compliance assessment requirements
for control devices.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Gas volumetric flow rate. The gas volumetric flow rate shall
be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, as appropriate.
(iii) Total organic regulated material or TOC concentration. To
determine compliance with a parts per million by volume total organic
regulated material or TOC limit, the owner or operator shall use Method
18 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable. The ASTM D6420-
99 may be used in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
under the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(D)(1) through
(3) of this section. Alternatively, any other method or data that have
been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 may be used. The procedures specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A), (B), (D), and (E) of this section shall be
used to calculate parts per million by volume concentration. The
calculated concentration shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen using
the procedures specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) of this section if
a combustion device is
[[Page 46278]]
the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust
the emissions.
* * * * *
(C) * * *
(1) The emission rate correction factor (or excess air), integrated
sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PTC 19-
10-1981--Part 10 (available for purchase from: ASME International,
Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763 or 212-591-
7722), shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration. * * *
* * * * *
(D) To measure the total organic regulated material concentration
at the outlet of a control device, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or ASTM D6420-99. If you have a combustion control device,
you must first determine which regulated material compounds are present
in the inlet gas stream using process knowledge or the screening
procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test,
analyze samples collected at the outlet of the combustion control
device as specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99 for the regulated
material compounds present at the inlet of the control device. The
method ASTM D6420-99 may be used only under the conditions specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If the target compound(s) is listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion
by volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
(2) If the target compound(s) is not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 but is potentially detected by mass spectrometry, an
additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as
detailed in Section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, met,
documented, and submitted with the performance test report even if you
do not use a moisture condenser or the compound is not considered
soluble.
(3) If a minimum of one sample/analysis cycle is completed at least
every 15 minutes.
(E) To measure the TOC concentration, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, or use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
according to the procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(1) Calibrate the instrument on the predominant regulated material
compound.
(2) The test results are acceptable if the response from the high
level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation for
the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on its most sensitive scale.
(3) The span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 parts per
million by volume.
(4) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to Equation
25A-1 of Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(iv) Percent reduction calculation. To determine compliance with a
percent reduction requirement, the owner or operator shall use Method
18, 25, or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable. The method
ASTM D6420-99 may be used in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, under the conditions specified in paragraphs
(e)(2)(iii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section. Alternatively, any other
method or data that have been validated according to the applicable
procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 may be used.
The procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A) through (I) of
this section shall be used to calculate percent reduction efficiency.
* * * * *
(F) To measure inlet and outlet concentrations of total organic
regulated material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM D6420-99, under the conditions specified in paragraphs
(e)(2)(iii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section. In conducting the
performance test, collect and analyze samples as specified in Method 18
or ASTM D6420-99. You must collect samples simultaneously at the inlet
and outlet of the control device. If the performance test is for a
combustion control device, you must first determine which regulated
material compounds are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,
uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or the screening
procedure described in Method 18. Quantify the emissions for the
regulated material compounds present in the inlet gas stream for both
the inlet and outlet gas streams for the combustion device.
(G) To determine inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC, use Method
25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure the total gaseous non-methane
organic (TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and outlet vent streams
using the procedures of Method 25. Use the TGNMO concentration in
Equations 4 and 5 of paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(H) Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, may be used instead
of Method 25 to measure inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC if the
condition in either paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(H)(1) or (2) of this section
is met.
(1) The concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control would result in exhaust TGNMO concentrations
of 50 parts per million by volume or less.
(2) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated TGNMO concentration of the control device exhaust is 50
parts per million by volume or less, regardless of the inlet
concentration.
(I) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(I)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and
formaldehyde is the principal regulated material compound (i.e.,
greater than 50 percent of the regulated material compounds in the
stream by volume), you must use Method 316 or 320 of 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A, to measure formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of the
control device. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde as a
surrogate for the percent reduction in total regulated material
emissions.
(2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated
material concentration or TOC concentration limit, and the uncontrolled
or inlet gas stream to the control device contains greater than 10
percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you must use Method 316 or 320 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, to separately determine the formaldehyde
concentration. Calculate the total organic regulated material
concentration or TOC concentration by totaling the formaldehyde
emissions measured using Method 316 or 320 and the other regulated
material compound emissions measured using Method 18 or 25/25A.
* * * * *
Subpart TT--[Amended]
8. Section 63.1000 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1000 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement
[[Page 46279]]
and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional Office to
find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal
agency.
(1) 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 paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(i) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1003 through 63.1015, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced
subpart.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(iv) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(v) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
* * * * *
Subpart UU--[Amended]
9. Section 63.1019 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1019 Applicability.
* * * * *
(f) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or
tribal agency.
(1) 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 paragraphs (f)(i) through
(v) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(i) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1022 through 62.1034, under Sec. 63.6(g), and the standards
for quality improvement programs in Sec. 63.1035. Where these standards
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(iv) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(v) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
* * * * *
Subpart WW--[Amended]
10. Part 63 is amended by adding Sec. 63.1067 to subpart WW to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1067 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator
has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a 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 paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for alternative means of
emission limitation, under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Subpart YY--[Amended]
11. Section 63.1100 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Adding four entries in alphabetical order and footnotes (c) and
(d) to Table 1 to Sec. 63.1100(a);
c. Revising the first sentence of the introductory text of
paragraph (g);
d. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through (4);
e. Revising the heading for paragraph (g)(5); and
f. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1100 Applicability.
(a) General. This subpart applies to source categories and affected
sources specified in Sec. 63.1103(a) through (h). * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 63.1100(a)--Source Category MACT a Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater Source category
Source category Storage vessels Process vents Transfer racks Equipment leaks streams Other MACT requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Carbon Black Production...... No.............. Yes............ No............. No............. No............. No............. Sec. 63.1103(f).
Cyanide Chemicals Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ No............. Sec. 63.1103(g).
Manufacturing.
Ethylene Production.......... Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes c.......... Sec. 63.1103(e).
* * * * * * *
Spandex Production........... Yes............. Yes............ No............. No............. No............. Yes d.......... Sec. 63.1103(h).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Maximum achievable control technology.
c Heat exchange systems as defined in Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
d Fiber spinning lines.
[[Page 46280]]
* * * * * * *
(g) Overlap with other regulations. Paragraphs (g)(1) through (6)
of this section specify the applicability of this subpart YY emission
point requirements when other rules may apply. * * *
(1) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for storage
vessels. (i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102, a
storage vessel that must be controlled according to the requirements of
this subpart and subpart G of this part is required to comply only with
the storage vessel requirements of this subpart.
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102, a
storage vessel that must be controlled according to the requirements of
this subpart and subpart Ka or Kb of 40 CFR part 60 is required to
comply only with the storage vessel requirements of this subpart.
(2) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for process vents.
(i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102, a process
vent that must be controlled according to the requirements of this
subpart and subpart G of this part is in compliance with this subpart
if it complies with either set of requirements. The owner or operator
must specify the rule with which they will comply in the Notification
of Compliance Status report required by Sec. 63.1110(a)(4).
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102, a
process vent that must be controlled according to the requirements of
this subpart and subpart III, RRR or NNN of 40 CFR part 60 is required
to comply only with the process vent requirements of this subpart.
(3) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for transfer
racks. After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102, a transfer
rack that must be controlled according to the requirements this subpart
and subpart G of this part is required to comply only with the transfer
rack requirements of this subpart.
(4) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for equipment
leaks. (i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102,
equipment that must be controlled according to this subpart and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart J or subpart V, is
required only to comply with the equipment leak requirements of this
subpart.
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102,
equipment that must be controlled according to this subpart and subpart
H of this part is in compliance with the equipment leak requirements of
this subpart if it complies with either set of requirements. The owner
or operator must specify the rule with which they will comply in the
Notification of Compliance Status report required by
Sec. 63.1110(a)(4).
(5) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for wastewater for
source categories other than ethylene production.
* * * * *
(6) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for waste for the
ethylene production source category. (i) After the compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.1102, a waste stream that is conveyed, stored, or
treated in a wastewater stream management unit, waste management unit,
or wastewater treatment system that receives streams subject to both
the control requirements of Sec. 63.1103(e)(3) for ethylene production
sources and the provisions of Secs. 63.133 through 63.147 shall comply
as specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
Compliance with the provisions of this paragraph (g)(6)(i) shall
constitute compliance with the requirements of this subpart for that
waste stream.
(A) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 and
63.140 for all equipment used in the storage and conveyance of the
waste stream.
(B) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.1103(e), 63.138, and
63.139 for the treatment and control of the waste stream.
(C) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.143 through 63.148 for
monitoring and inspections of equipment and for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The owner or operator is not required to comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with the treatment and control requirements in Secs. 61.355
through 61.357.
(ii) After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1102,
compliance with Sec. 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance with the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) for
waste streams that are subject to both the control requirements of
Sec. 63.1103(e)(3) for ethylene production sources and the control
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
12. Section 63.1101 is amended by:
a. Adding a sentence at the end of the introductory text;
b. Adding a sentence at the end of the definition of ``process
vent'; and
c. Revising the definitions of ``Shutdown,'' ``Storage vessel or
tank,'' and ``Total organic compounds or TOC.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1101 Definitions.
* * * The definitions in this section do not apply to waste
requirements for ethylene production sources.
* * * * *
Process vent * * * This definition does not apply to ethylene
production sources. Ethylene process vents are defined in
Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
* * * * *
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source or
equipment that is used to comply with this subpart, or the emptying and
degassing of a storage vessel. For the purposes of this subpart,
shutdown includes, but is not limited to, periodic maintenance,
replacement of equipment, or repair. Shutdown does not include the
routine rinsing or washing of equipment in batch operation between
batches. Shutdown includes the decoking of ethylene production unit
furnaces.
* * * * *
Storage vessel or tank, for the purposes of regulation under the
storage vessel provisions of this subpart, means a stationary unit that
is constructed primarily of nonearthen materials (such as wood,
concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) that provides structural
support and is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids or other
materials. Storage vessel includes surge control vessels and bottoms
receiver vessels. For the purposes of regulation under the storage
vessel provisions of this subpart, storage vessel does not include
vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships; pressure vessels designed to operate in
excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere; or
wastewater storage vessels. Wastewater storage vessels are covered
under the wastewater provisions of Sec. 63.1106.
* * * * *
Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream, with the
concentrations expressed on a carbon basis.
* * * * *
13. Section 63.1102 is amended by revising paragraph (a) adding and
reserving paragraph (b), and adding a Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102 to read
as follows:
[[Page 46281]]
Sec. 63.1102 Compliance schedule.
(a) General requirements. Affected sources, as defined in
Sec. 63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins production,
Sec. 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production,
Sec. 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride production,
Sec. 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate production,
Sec. 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production, Sec. 63.1103(f)(1)(i)
for carbon black production, Sec. 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing, or Sec. 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex
production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this subpart
and the subparts referenced by this subpart according to the schedule
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate. Proposal
and effective dates are specified in Table 1 to this section.
(1) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. (i) The
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, and
that has an initial startup before the effective date of standards for
an affected source, shall comply with this subpart no later than the
applicable effective date in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102 of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source that has an initial startup after the applicable effective date
in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102 of this section shall comply with this
subpart upon startup of the source.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, but before the
effective date in Table 1 to this section, shall comply with this
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date if the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) (A) and (B) of this section are
met.
(A) The promulgated standards are more stringent than the proposed
standards.
(B) The owner or operator complies with this subpart as proposed
during the 3-year period immediately after the effective date of
standards for the affected source.
(2) Compliance dates for existing sources. (i) The owner or
operator of an existing affected source shall comply with the
requirements of this subpart within 3 years after the effective date of
standards for the affected source.
(ii) The owner or operator of an area source that increases its
emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such that the source
becomes a major source shall be subject to the relevant standards for
existing sources under this subpart. Such sources shall comply with the
relevant standards within 3 years of becoming a major source.
(b) [Reserved].
Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102.--Source Category Proposal and Effective Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Proposal date Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acetal Resins Production. October 14, 1998 June 29, 1999.
(b) Acrylic and Modacrylic October 14, 1998 June 29, 1999.
Fibers Production.
(c) Hydrogen Fluoride October 14, 1998 June 29, 1999.
Production.
(d) Polycarbonate Production. October 14, 1998 June 29, 1999.
(e) Ethylene Production...... December 6, 2000 July 12, 2002.
(f) Carbon Black Production.. December 6, 2000 July 12, 2002.
(g) Cyanide Chemicals December 6, 2000 July 12, 2002.
Manufacturing.
(h) Spandex Production....... December 6, 2000 July 12, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 63.1103 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) through (h)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1103 Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Ethylene production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the ethylene
production (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) source
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) (A) through (G) of this section that are
associated with an ethylene production unit that is located at a major
source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
(A) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store
liquids containing organic HAP.
(B) All ethylene process vents (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section) from continuous unit operations.
(C) All transfer racks (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) that load HAP-containing material.
(D) Equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contains or
contacts organic HAP.
(E) All waste streams (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) associated with an ethylene production unit.
(F) All heat exchange systems (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section) associated with an ethylene production unit.
(G) All ethylene cracking furnaces and associated decoking
operations.
(ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii) (A) through (L) of this section are in the ethylene
production source category but are not subject to the requirements of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(A) Equipment that is located within an ethylene production unit
that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
(B) Stormwater from segregated sewers.
(C) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated
sewers.
(D) Spills.
(E) Water from safety showers.
(F) Water from testing of fire-fighting and deluge systems.
(G) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as
impurities.
(H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that only
transfer liquids containing organic HAP as impurities.
(I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that vapor
balance during all transfer operations.
(J) Air emissions from all ethylene cracking furnaces, including
furnace stack emissions during decoking operations.
(K) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
(L) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships.
(iii) Exclusions. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to
process units and emission points subject to subparts F, G, H, I and CC
of this part.
(iv) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the ethylene
production source category is specified in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions. Ethylene process vent means a gas stream with a
flow rate greater than 0.005 standard cubic meters
[[Page 46282]]
per minute containing greater than 20 parts per million by volume HAP
that is continuously discharged during operation of an ethylene
production unit, as defined in this section. Ethylene process vents are
gas streams that are discharged to the atmosphere (or the point of
entry into a control device, if any) either directly or after passing
through one or more recovery devices. Ethylene process vents do not
include relief valve discharges; gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas
system; leaks from equipment regulated under this subpart; episodic or
nonroutine releases such as those associated with startup, shutdown,
and malfunction; and in situ sampling systems (online analyzers).
Ethylene production or production unit means a chemical
manufacturing process unit in which ethylene and/or propylene are
produced by separation from petroleum refining process streams or by
subjecting hydrocarbons to high temperatures in the presence of steam.
The ethylene production unit includes the separation of ethylene and/or
propylene from associated streams such as a C4 product,
pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. Ethylene production does
not include the manufacture of SOCMI chemicals such as the production
of butadiene from the C4 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis
gasoline.
Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through
cooling water system (e.g., river or pond water). A heat exchange
system can include an entire recirculating or once-through cooling
system.
Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading
hoses at a single loading rack that is used to fill tank trucks and/or
railcars with organic HAP. Transfer rack includes the associated pumps,
meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves.
Transfer rack does not include racks, arms, or hoses that contain
organic HAP only as impurities; or racks, arms, or hoses that vapor
balance during all loading operations.
Waste means any material resulting from industrial, commercial,
mining, or agricultural operations, or from community activities, that
is discarded or is being accumulated, stored, or physically,
chemically, thermally, or biologically treated prior to being
discarded, recycled, or discharged.
Waste stream means the waste generated by a particular process
unit, product tank, or waste management unit. The characteristics of
the waste stream (e.g., flow rate, HAP concentration, water content)
are determined at the point of waste generation. Examples of a waste
stream include process wastewater, product tank drawdown, sludge and
slop oil removed from waste management units, and landfill leachate.
(3) Requirements. The owner or operator must control organic HAP
emissions from each affected source emission point by meeting the
applicable requirements specified in Table 7 to this section. An owner
or operator must perform the applicability assessment procedures and
methods for process vents specified in Sec. 63.1104, except for
paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n). An owner or
operator must perform the applicability assessment procedures and
methods for equipment leaks specified in Sec. 63.1107. General
compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are specified in
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Minimization of emissions from startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.1111; the plan must also
establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events. Procedures for
approval of alternate means of emission limitations are specified in
Sec. 63.1113.
Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103(e).--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate an Ethylene Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A storage vessel (as (1) The maximum true (i) Fill the vessel
defined in Sec. 63.1101) vapor pressure of through a submerged
that stores liquid total organic HAP pipe; or
containing organic HAP. is 3.4 (ii) Comply with the
kilopascals but requirements for
76.6 kilopascals; storage vessels
and the capacity of with capacities 95 cubic
thn-eq>4 cubic meters.
meters but 95 cubic meters.
(b) A storage vessel (as (1) The maximum true (i) Comply with the
defined in Sec. 63.1101) vapor pressure of requirements of
that stores liquid total organic HAP subpart WW of this
containing organic HAP. is 3.4 part; or
kilopascals but 76.6 emissions of total
kilopascals; and organic HAP by 98
the capacity of the weight-percent by
vessel is 95 cubic meters. through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices and
meet the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(1).
(c) A storage vessel (as (1) The maximum true (i) Reduce emissions
defined in Sec. 63.1101) vapor pressure of of total organic
that stores liquid total organic HAP HAP by 98 weight-
containing organic HAP. is 76.6 percent by venting
kilopascals. emissions through a
closed vent system
to any combination
of control devices
and meet the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(1).
(d) An ethylene process vent (1) The process vent (i) Reduce emissions
(as defined in paragraph is at an existing of organic HAP by
(e)(2) of this section). source and the vent 98 weight-percent;
stream has a flow or reduce organic
rate 0.011 scmm and a concentration of 20
total organic HAP parts per million
concentration 50 parts per whichever is less
million by volume; stringent, by
or the process vent venting emissions
is at a new source through a closed
and the vent stream vent system to any
has a flow rate 0.008 scmm control devices and
and a total organic meet the
HAP concentration requirements
30 parts specified in Sec.
per million by 63.982(b) and
volume. (c)(2).
(e) A transfer rack (as (1) Materials loaded (i) Reduce emissions
defined in paragraph (e)(2) have a true vapor of organic HAP by
of this section). pressure of total 98 weight-percent;
organic HAP 3.4 kilopascals HAP or TOC to a
and 76 concentration of 20
cubic meters per parts per million
day (averaged over by volume;
any consecutive 30- whichever is less
day period) of HAP- stringent, by
containing material venting emissions
is loaded. through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices as
specified in Sec.
63.1105; or
[[Page 46283]]
(ii) Install process
piping designed to
collect the HAP-
containing vapors
displaced from tank
trucks or railcars
during loading and
to route it to a
process, a fuel gas
system, or a vapor
balance system, as
specified in Sec.
63.1105.
(f) Equipment (as defined in (1) The equipment Comply with the
Sec. 63.1101) that contains or requirements of
contains or contacts contacts 5 weight-percent part.
organic HAP; and
the equipment is
not in vacuum
service.
(g) Processes that generate (1) The wastewater (i) Comply with the
waste (as defined in contains any of the waste requirements
paragraph (e)(2) of this following HAP: of subpart XX of
section). benzene, cumene, this part. For
ethyl benzene, ethylene
hexane, manufacturing
naphthalene, process unit waste
styrene, toluene, o- stream
xylene, m-xylene, p- requirements, terms
xylene, or 1,3- have the meanings
butadiene. specified in
subpart XX.
(h) A heat exchange system .................... Comply with the heat
(as defined in paragraph exchange system
(e)(2) of this section). requirements of
subpart XX of this
part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Carbon black production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the carbon
black production source category (as defined in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section), the affected source shall comprise each carbon black
production process unit located at a major source, as defined in
section 112(a) of the Act. The affected source for the carbon black
production source category includes all waste management units,
maintenance wastewater, and equipment components that contain or
contact HAP that are associated with the carbon black production
process unit.
(ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the carbon
black production and acetylene decomposition carbon black production
affected sources, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, is
specified in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions. Carbon black production means the production of
carbon black by either the furnace, thermal, acetylene decomposition,
or lampblack processes.
Carbon black production unit means the equipment assembled and
connected by hard-piping or duct work to process raw materials to
manufacture, store, and transport a carbon black product. For the
purposes of this subpart, a carbon black production process unit
includes reactors and associated operations; associated recovery
devices; and any feed, intermediate and product storage vessels,
product transfer racks, and connected ducts and piping. A carbon black
production process unit includes pumps, compressors, agitators,
pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves
or lines, valves, connectors, instrumentation systems, and control
devices or systems.
Dryer means a rotary-kiln dryer that is heated externally and is
used to dry wet pellets in the wet pelletization process.
Main unit filter means the filter that separates the carbon black
from the tailgas.
Process filter means the filter that separates the carbon black
from the conveying air.
Purge filter means the filter that separates the carbon black from
the dryer exhaust.
(3) Requirements. (i) Table 8 to this section specifies the carbon
black production standards applicability for existing and new sources.
Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified in
Sec. 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not
required to perform applicability tests or other applicability
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart.
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of
alternative means of emission limitations are specified in
Sec. 63.1113.
(ii) Pressure relief devices used to protect against overpressure
in the case of catastrophic failure of your process filter system are
exempt from the closed vent system inspection requirements of
Sec. 63.983(b) and (c). Exempt pressure relief devices must be
designated and identified in your Notification of Compliance Status
report.
Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f).--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate a Carbon Black Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A carbon black (1) The HAP (i) Reduce emissions
production main unit filter concentration of of HAP by using a
process vent. the emission stream flare meeting the
is equal to or requirements of
greater than 260 subpart SS of this
parts per million part; or
by volumea. (ii) Reduce
emissions of total
HAP by 98 weight-
percent or to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume,
whichever is less
stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1104(e).
[[Page 46284]]
(g) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing source category, the affected source shall
include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit located at a
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act. The affected
source shall also include all waste management units, maintenance
wastewater, and equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contain or
contact cyanide chemicals that are associated with the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process unit.
(ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the affected
source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, is specified
in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions. Andrussow process unit means a process unit that
produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia in the
presence of oxygen over a platinum/rhodium catalyst. An Andrussow
process unit begins at the point at which the raw materials are stored
and ends at the point at which refined hydrogen cyanide is reacted as a
raw material in a downstream process, burned on-site as fuel in a
boiler or industrial furnace, or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen
cyanide from the reactor is reacted with sodium hydroxide to form
sodium cyanide prior to the refining process, the unit operation where
sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be part of the Andrussow
process unit.
Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) process unit means a process unit
that produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia over a
platinum catalyst. A BMA process unit begins at the point at which raw
materials are stored and ends at the point at which refined hydrogen
cyanide is reacted as a raw material in a downstream process, burned
on-site as a fuel in a boiler or industrial furnace, or is shipped
offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide from the reactor is reacted with
sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide prior to the refining process,
the unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be
part of the BMA process unit.
Byproduct means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during
the production of another chemical.
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit or CCMPU means the
equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide
chemicals product. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit shall
be limited to any one of the following: an Andrussow process unit, a
BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen
cyanide process unit. For the purpose of this subpart, a cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process unit includes reactors and associated
unit operations; associated recovery devices; and any feed,
intermediate and product storage vessels, product transfer racks, and
connected ducts and piping. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process
unit includes pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves,
connectors, instrumentation systems, and control devices or systems.
Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide, potassium
cyanide, or sodium cyanide which is manufactured as the intended
product of a CCMPU or a byproduct of the Sohio process. Other hydrogen
cyanide, potassium cyanide, or sodium cyanide byproducts, impurities,
wastes, and trace contaminants are not considered to be cyanide
chemicals products.
Dry-end process vent means a process vent originating from the drum
filter or any other unit operation in the dry end of a sodium cyanide
manufacturing process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the dry
end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins in the unit operation
where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in the drum
filter, and ends when the sodium cyanide is used as a raw material in a
downstream process, or is shipped offsite.
Organic HAP means, for purposes of applicability of the
requirements of this subpart, all hydrogen cyanide compounds.
Raw hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has not been
through the refining process. Raw hydrogen cyanide usually has a
hydrogen cyanide concentration less than 10 percent.
Refined hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has been
through the refining process. Refined hydrogen cyanide usually has a
hydrogen cyanide concentration greater than 99 percent.
Refining process means the collection of equipment in a cyanide
chemicals manufacturing processing unit used to concentrate raw
hydrogen cyanide from a concentration around 10 percent or less to
refined hydrogen cyanide at a concentration greater than 99 percent.
Sodium cyanide process unit means a process unit that produces
sodium cyanide by reacting hydrogen cyanide and sodium hydroxide via
the neutralization, or wet, process. A sodium cyanide process unit
begins at the unit operation where refined hydrogen cyanide is reacted
with sodium hydroxide and ends at the point the solid sodium cyanide
product is shipped offsite or used as a raw material in a downstream
process. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to
form sodium cyanide prior to the hydrogen cyanide refining process, the
unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is not considered to be
part of the sodium cyanide process unit. For this type of process, the
sodium cyanide process unit begins at the point that the aqueous sodium
cyanide stream leaves the unit operation where the sodium cyanide is
formed. In situations where potassium hydroxide is substituted for
sodium hydroxide to produce potassium cyanide, the process unit is
still considered a sodium cyanide process unit.
Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit means a process unit that
produces hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct of the acrylonitrile
production process when acrylonitrile is manufactured using the Sohio
process. A Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit begins at the point the
hydrogen cyanide leaves the unit operation where the hydrogen cyanide
is separated from the acrylonitrile (usually referred to as the heads
column). The Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit ends at the point
refined hydrogen cyanide is reacted as a raw material in a downstream
process, burned on-site as fuel in a boiler or industrial furnace, or
is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium
hydroxide to form sodium cyanide prior to the refining process, the
unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be part
of the Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit.
Wet-end process vent means a process vent originating from the
reactor, crystallizer, or any other unit operation in the wet end of
the sodium cyanide process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the
wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins at the point at which
the raw materials are stored and ends just prior to the unit operation
where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in the drum
filter. Wastewater streams containing discarded wastewater from the
sodium cyanide production process are not considered to be part of the
wet-end sodium cyanide process. Discarded wastewater that is no longer
used in the production process is considered to be process and/or
maintenance wastewater. Vents from process and maintenance wastewater
operations are not wet-end process vents.
(3) Requirements. Table 9 to this section specifies the cyanide
chemicals
[[Page 46285]]
manufacturing standards applicable to existing and new sources.
Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified in
Sec. 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not
required to perform applicability tests or other applicability
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart.
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of
alternative means of emission limitations are specified in
Sec. 63.1113.
(4) Determination of overall HAP emission reduction for a process
unit. (i) The owner or operator shall determine the overall HAP
emission reduction for process vents in a process unit using Equation 1
of this section. The overall organic HAP emission reduction shall be
determined for all process vents in the process unit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY02.015
Where:
REDCCMPU=Overall HAP emission reduction for the group of
process vents in the CCMPU, percent.
Eunc,i=Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent i that
is controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, kg/
yr.
n=Number of process vents in the process unit that are controlled by
using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.
Ri=Control efficiency of the combustion, recovery, or
recapture device used to control HAP emissions from vent i, determined
in accordance with paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
Eunc,j=Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent j that
is not controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device,
kg/yr.
m=Number of process vents in the process unit that are not controlled
by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.
(ii) The control efficiency shall be assigned as specified in
paragraph (g)(4)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If the process vent is controlled using a flare in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 63.987, or a combustion device in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.988(b)(2), for which a
performance test has not been conducted, the control efficiency shall
be assumed to be 98 weight-percent. For hydrogen-fueled flares, an
owner or operator may use a control efficiency greater than 98 weight-
percent if they can provide engineering calculations and supporting
information demonstrating a greater control efficiency.
(B) If the process vent is controlled using a combustion, recovery,
or recapture device for which a performance test has been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.997, the control efficiency
shall be the efficiency determined by the performance test.
(5) Source category specific modifications to testing procedures.
(i) When identifying equipment subject to any equipment leak
requirements, an owner or operator is allowed to designate specific
components of such equipment as never being safe to monitor with their
Notification of Compliance Status report and periodic compliance
reports. In order for an owner or operator to designate such equipment
as never being safe to monitor, they must certify that monitoring such
equipment at any time the CCMPU is operating is never safe (e.g.,
monitoring this equipment would present an unreasonable hazard or
preclude testing personnel from meeting emergency evacuation
requirements). If it is demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction that equipment designated by the owner or operator as
never safe to monitor is appropriately designated, an owner or operator
will not be required to monitor such equipment.
(ii) For process vent hydrogen cyanide emissions that are vented to
a control device other than a flare during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, the design evaluation must include documentation that the
control device being used achieves the required control efficiency
during the reasonably expected maximum flow rate and emission rate
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(iii) If a facility controls process vent emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction by using a flare, an owner or operator is not
required to perform flow rate and heat content testing as specified in
Sec. 63.987(b)(3)(ii) and (iii). In lieu of performing flow rate and
heat content testing, an owner or operator is required to submit
engineering calculations that substantiate that a flare meets the
applicable heat content or flow rates, or provide data from a
compliance assessment that the flare is in compliance under worst case
conditions (e.g., maximum operating conditions).
(iv) If flare velocity and net heating value testing, as specified
in Sec. 63.11(b)(6)(ii) and (b)(7)(i), would create an unreasonable
hazard for testing personnel, an owner or operator is allowed to submit
engineering calculations that substantiate vent stream velocity and
heat content of a flare in lieu of test data. These calculations are
required to be submitted with the facilities' compliance test
notification report for approval by the Administrator.
(v) The data from any performance test method used to measure HCN
concentrations must be validated using EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A).
[[Page 46286]]
Table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g).--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate a Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Existing or New Affected
Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A storage vessel........ (1) The storage (i) Reduce emissions
vessel contains of hydrogen cyanide
refined hydrogen by using a flare
cyanide. meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(b); or
(ii) Reduce
emissions of
hydrogen cyanide by
98 weight-percent,
or to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)(1)
or (d).
(b) A process vent from a .................... (i) Reduce overall
continuous unit operations annual emissions of
in an Andrussow, BMA, or total HAP from the
Sohio hydrogen cyanide collection of
process unit. process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of
this section. Any
control device used
to reduce emissions
from one or more
process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must
meet the applicable
requirements
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2); or
(ii) Reduce
emissions of total
HAP from each
process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the
process unit by
using a flare
meeting the
requirements
specified in Sec.
63.982(b); or
(iii) Reduce
emissions of total
HAP from each
process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent or
to a concentration
of 20 parts per
million by volume,
by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system
to any combination
of control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)(2)
or (d).
(c) One or more wet end .................... (i) Reduce overall
process vents, as defined annual emissions of
in paragraph (g)(2) of this total HAP from the
section, in a sodium collection of
cyanide process unit. process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of
this section. Any
control device used
to reduce emissions
from one or more
process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must
meet the applicable
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(2);
or
(ii) Reduce
emissions of total
HAP from each wet-
end process vent in
the process unit by
using a flare
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(b); or
(iii) Reduce
emissions of total
HAP from each wet-
end process vent by
98 weight-percent,
or to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system and any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)(2)
or (d).
(d) One or more dry end .................... (i) Reduce overall
process vents, as defined annual emissions of
in paragraph (g)(2) of this sodium cyanide from
section, in a sodium the collection of
cyanide process unit. process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of
this section. Any
control device used
to reduce emissions
from one or more
process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must
meet the applicable
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(2);
or
(ii) Reduce
emissions of sodium
cyanide from each
dry-end process
vent in the process
unit by 98 weight-
percent by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system
to any combination
of control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)(2)
or (d).
[[Page 46287]]
(e) A transfer rack......... (1) The transfer (i) Reduce emissions
rack is used to of hydrogen cyanide
load refined by using a flare
hydrogen cyanide meeting the
into tank trucks requirements of
and/or rail cars. Sec. 63.982(b); or
(ii) Reduce
emissions of
hydrogen cyanide by
98 weight-percent,
or to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume,
whichever is less
stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements
specified in Sec.
63.982(c)(1),
(c)(2), or (d).
(f) A new cyanide chemicals (1) The process (i) Achieve a
manufacturing process unit wastewater is from combined removal
that generates process HCN purification, and control of HAP
wastewater. ammonia from wastewater of
purification, or 93 weight-percent.
flare blowdown.
(g) A cyanide chemicals (1) The maintenance (i) Comply with the
manufacturing process unit wastewater contains requirements of
that generates maintenance hydrogen cyanide or Sec. 63.1106(b).
wastewater. acetonitrile.
(h) An item of equipment (1) The item of (i) Comply with the
listed in Sec. equipment meets the requirements in
63.1106(c)(1) that criteria specified Table 35 of subpart
transports or contains in Sec. G of this part.
wastewater liquid streams 63.1106(c)(1)
from a cyanide chemicals through (3) and
manufacturing process unit. either (c)(4)(i) or
(ii).
(i) Equipment, as defined (1) The equipment (i) Comply with
under Sec. 63.1101. contains or either subpart TT
contacts hydrogen or UU of this part,
cyanide and and paragraph
operates equal to (g)(5) of this
or greater then 300 section, with the
hours per year. exception that open-
ended lines that
contain or contact
hydrogen cyanide
are exempt from any
requirements to
install a cap,
plug, blind flange,
or second valve to
be capped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Spandex production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the spandex
production (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed
in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section that are
associated with a reaction spinning spandex production process unit
located at a major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
(A) All process vents (as defined in Sec. 63.1101).
(B) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store
liquids containing organic HAP.
(C) All spandex fiber spinning lines using a spinning solution
having organic HAP.
(ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs
(h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are in the spandex production
source category but are not subject to the requirements of paragraph
(h)(3) of this section.
(A) Equipment that is located within a spandex production process
unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
(B) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as
impurities.
(iii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for affected
sources, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, is
specified in paragraph (b) of Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions. Fiber spinning line means the group of equipment
and process vents associated with spandex fiber spinning operations.
The fiber spinning line includes the blending and dissolving tanks,
spinning solution filters, spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the
equipment used downstream of the spin bath to wash, draw, or dry on the
wet belt the spun fiber.
Spandex or spandex fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in
which the fiber-forming substance is a long-chain polymer comprised of
at least 85 percent by mass of a segmented polyurethane.
Spandex production means the production of synthetic spandex
fibers.
Spandex production process unit means a process unit that is
specifically used for the production of synthetic spandex fibers.
(3) Requirements. Table 10 to this section specifies the spandex
production source category requirements for new and existing sources.
An owner or operator must perform the applicability assessment
procedures and methods for process vents specified in Sec. 63.1104,
excluding paragraphs (b)(1), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n).
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Minimization of emissions
from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.1111; the
plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events.
Procedures for approval of alternate means of emission limitations are
specified in Sec. 63.1113.
[[Page 46288]]
Table 10 to Sec. 63.1103(h)--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate a Spandex Production Process Unit at a New or Existing Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A storage vessel (as (1) The maximum true (i) Comply with the
defined in Sec. 63.1101) vapor pressure of requirements of
that stores liquid the organic HAP is subpart WW of this
containing organic HAP. 3.4 part; or
kilopascals; and (ii) Reduce
the capacity of the emissions of
vessel is 47 cubic meters. weight-percent by
venting emissions
in through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
subpart SS of this
part, as specified
in Sec.
63.982(a)(1).
(b) A process vent.......... .................... Reduce emissions of
organic HAP by 95
weight-percent, or
reduce organic HAP
or TOC to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume,
whichever is less
stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(2).
(c) A fiber spinning line... .................... Operate the fiber
spinning line such
that emissions are
captured and vented
through a line
closed vent system
to a control device
that complies with
the requirements of
Sec. 63.982(a)(2).
If a control device
other than a flare
is used, HAP
emissions must be
reduced by 95
weight-percent, or
total organic HAP
or TOC must be
reduced to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume,
whichever is less
stringent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Section 63.1104 is amended by:
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(1);
d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (k) introductory text;
and
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (m)(2)(i) introductory
text.
The revisions are to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1104 Process vents from continuous unit operations:
applicability assessment procedures and methods.
(a) * * * The owner or operator of a process vent is not required
to determine the criteria specified for a process vent that is being
controlled (including control by flare) in accordance with the
applicable weight-percent, TOC concentration, or organic HAP
concentration requirement in Sec. 63.1103.
* * * * *
(e) TOC or Organic HAP concentration. The TOC or organic HAP
concentrations shall be determined based on paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2),
or (k) of this section, or any other method or data that have been
validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of 40
CFR part 63. * * *
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
(k) * * * If a process vent flow rate or process vent organic HAP
or TOC concentration is being determined for comparison with the
applicable flow rate or concentration value presented in the tables in
Sec. 63.1103 to determine control requirement applicability,
engineering assessment may be used to determine the flow rate or
concentration for the representative operating conditions expected to
yield the highest flow rate or concentration.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) Process change. (i) Whenever a process vent becomes subject to
control requirements under this subpart as a result of a process
change, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days
after the performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is
sooner. * * *
* * * * *
16. Add Sec. 63.1105 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1105 Transfer racks.
(a) Design requirements. The owner or operator shall equip each
transfer rack with one of the control options listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the
collected vapors to a flare. The owner or operator must meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(2) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the
collected vapors to a control device other than a flare. The owner or
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(3) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected
vapors to a process where the HAP vapors shall predominantly meet one
of, or a combination of, the ends specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section or to a fuel gas system. The owner or
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(i) Recycled and/or consumed in the same manner as a material that
fulfills the same function in that process;
(ii) Transformed by chemical reaction into materials that are not
HAP;
(iii) Incorporated into a product; and/or
(iv) Recovered.
(4) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected
vapors to a vapor balance system. The vapor balance system must be
designed to route the
[[Page 46289]]
collected HAP vapors to the storage vessel from which the liquid being
loaded originated, or to another storage vessel connected to a common
header, or to compress and route collected HAP vapors to a process.
(b) Operating requirements. An owner or operator of a transfer rack
shall operate it in such a manner that emissions are routed through the
equipment specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Control device operation. Whenever HAP emissions are vented to
a control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart,
such control device shall be operating.
(d) Tank trucks and railcars. The owner or operator shall load HAP-
containing materials only into tank trucks and railcars that meet the
requirement in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section and shall
maintain the records specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR
part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars; or
(2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding
12 months as determined by the procedures in paragraph (h) of this
section. Vapor-tight means that the pressure in a truck or railcar tank
will not drop more than 750 pascals within 5 minutes after it is
pressurized to a minimum of 4,500 pascals.
(e) Pressure relief device. The owner or operator of a transfer
rack subject to the provisions of this subpart shall ensure that no
pressure relief device in the loading equipment of each tank truck or
railcar shall begin to open to the atmosphere during loading. Pressure
relief devices needed for safety purposes are not subject to the
requirements of this paragraph.
(f) Compatible system. The owner or operator of a transfer rack
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall load HAP-containing
materials only to tank trucks or railcars equipped with a vapor
collection system that is compatible with the transfer rack's closed
vent system or process piping.
(g) Loading while systems connected. The owner or operator of a
transfer rack subject to this subpart shall load HAP-containing
material only to tank trucks or railcars whose collection systems are
connected to the transfer rack's closed vent system or process piping.
(h) Vapor tightness procedures. For the purposes of demonstrating
vapor tightness to determine compliance with paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, the procedures and equipment specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (2) shall be used.
(1) The pressure test procedures specified in Method 27 of appendix
A to 40 CFR part 60.
(2) A pressure measurement device that has a precision of
2.5 millimeters of mercury or better and that is capable
of measuring above the pressure at which the tank truck or railcar is
to be tested for vapor tightness.
(i) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of a transfer rack shall
record that the verification of DOT tank certification or Method 27 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing required in Sec. 63.84(c) has been
performed. Various methods for the record of verification can be used,
such as a check-off on a log sheet, a list of DOT serial numbers or
Method 27 data, or a position description for gate security showing
that the security guard will not allow any trucks on-site that do not
have the appropriate documentation.
17. Subpart YY is amended by adding Sec. 63.1114 to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1114 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator
has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Sec. 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3), (d)(3), (e)(3),
(f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and (h)(3) under Sec. 63.6(g). Follow the
requirements in Sec. 63.1113 to request permission to use an
alternative means of emission limitation. Where these standards
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
[FR Doc. 02-12841 Filed 7-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P