[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40316-40342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5970]
[[Page 40315]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 40316]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121; FRL-8190-5]
RIN 2060-AM43
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 10, 2003, EPA promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants for miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing. Several petitions for judicial review of the
final rule were filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Petitioners expressed concern with
various requirements in the final rule, including applicability of
specific operations and processes, the leak detection and repair
requirements for connectors, criteria to define affected wastewater
streams requiring control, control requirements for wastewater streams
that contain only soluble hazardous air pollutants, the definition of
``process condensers,'' and recordkeeping requirements for Group 2
batch process vents. In this action, EPA amends the final rule to
address these issues and to correct inconsistencies that have been
discovered during the review process.
DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5402, fax number: (919)
541-0246; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS code \1\ regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................... 3251, 3252, 3253, Producers of
3254, 3255, 3256, specialty organic
and 3259, with chemicals,
several exceptions. explosives, certain
polymers and
resins, and certain
pesticide
intermediates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.2435 of
subpart FFFF (national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing). If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of
subpart A (General Provisions).
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final action will also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final amendments is available only by
filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by September 12, 2006. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final amendments that
was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public
comment may be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final
amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits, Compliance Options, and Initial Compliance
Requirements
C. Monitoring Requirements
D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
III. Response to Comments
A. Applicability
[[Page 40317]]
B. Requirements for Process Vents
C. Requirements for Wastewater
D. Requirements for Equipment Leaks
E. Initial Compliance Requirements
F. Monitoring Requirements
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
H. Overlap With Other Rules
I. Definitions
J. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On November 10, 2003, we promulgated NESHAP for miscellaneous
organic chemical (MON) manufacturing as subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63.
Petitions for review of the MON were filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by American Chemistry
Council, Eastman Chemical Company, Clariant LSM (America), Inc., Rohm
and Haas Company, General Electric Company, Coke Oven Environmental
Task Force, and Lyondell Chemical Company (collectively
``Petitioners'').\1\ These matters were consolidated into American
Chemical Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 04-1004, 04-1005, 04-1008, 04-
1009, 04-1010, 04-1012, 04-1013 (District of Columbia Circuit). Issues
raised by the petitioners included applicability of the final rule;
leak detection and repair requirements for connectors; definitions of
process condenser, continuous process vent, and Group 1 wastewater;
treatment requirements for wastewater that is Group 1 only for soluble
hazardous air pollutants (SHAP); recordkeeping for Group 2 batch
process vents; and notification requirements for Group 2 emission
points that become Group 1 emission points. In early October 2005, the
parties signed a settlement agreement. Pursuant to section 113(g) of
the CAA, notice of the settlement was published in the Federal Register
on October 26, 2005 (70 FR 61814).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Fertilizer Institute and Arteva Specialties S. `ar.l
also filed petitions for review but voluntarily withdrew their
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2005, we proposed amendments to subpart FFFF to
address the issues raised by Petitioners and made other corrections and
clarifications to ensure that the final rule is implemented as
intended. We received a total of 20 comment letters from 18
stakeholders. Most of the letters were from companies that will have
affected sources under subpart FFFF, three were from industry trade
associations, three were from environmental consulting firms, and one
was from a law firm on behalf of some of the petitioners. The final
amendments reflect full consideration of the petition, and all of the
public comments we received on the proposed amendments.
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
The final amendments clarify applicability of subpart FFFF, provide
additional compliance options, modify initial and continuous compliance
requirements, and simplify recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Significant changes are summarized in the sections below. Additional
clarifications and corrections are highlighted in Table 1 to this
preamble and in the preamble to the proposed amendments (70 FR 73098,
December 8, 2005). Collectively, these provisions will reduce the
burden associated with demonstrating compliance without affecting
emissions control or the ability of enforcement agencies to ensure
compliance.
A. Applicability
The final amendments exempt carbon monoxide production and
additional polymer finishing operations from subpart FFFF. In the
definition of the term ``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
process,'' the final amendments clarify the end point of processes that
produce solid products.
B. Emission Limits, Compliance Options, and Initial Compliance
Requirements
Many of the changes in the final amendments involve requirements
for process vents. For example, Table 2 in the amended rule allows
floating roof technology to control batch process vent emissions from
process tanks. The final amendments also change the definition of the
term ``continuous process vent'' to include all continuous operations,
not just reactors, air oxidation reactors, and distillation units. A
corresponding change has been made in the definition of the term
``surge control vessel.'' Another change to the definition of the term
``continuous process vent'' requires determinations of continuous
process vents prior to combination with emissions from another
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit (MCPU).
Table 3 in the final rule currently requires control of
``particulate matter (PM) hazardous air pollutant (HAP)'' emissions
from process vents at new sources. The amendments replace requirements
for ``PM HAP'' with requirements for ``HAP metals.'' One of the related
changes is that the emissions threshold above which control is required
has been changed from 400 pounds per year (lb/yr) of PM HAP to 150 lb/
yr of HAP metals. Another change in the amended rule is that Method 29
of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 is allowed as an alternative to Method
5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
We have amended the definition of the term ``process condenser'' to
clarify what it means for a condenser to be ``integral to the MCPU.''
Under the current definition, condensers that receive vapor streams
from batch operations in an MCPU at temperatures below the boiling or
bubble point of the HAP are not process condensers. The amended
definition includes most of these condensers, provided they are capable
of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value, use, or reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse.
Exceptions are provided for condensers that are considered to be part
of recovery devices.
The final amendments specify corrected procedures for using
specified equations to calculate uncontrolled emissions from process
condensers. The revised procedures require consideration of the
condenser exit gas temperature and composition of the condensate.
Alternatively, uncontrolled emissions from process condensers may be
estimated based on engineering assessments under the same conditions as
the final rule currently allows for estimating emissions directly from
the process vessels. The final amendments also specify initial
compliance requirements for process condensers. You must either measure
the exhaust gas temperature and show it is less than the boiling or
bubble point of the substance in the process vessel or perform a
material balance around the vessel and condenser to show that at least
99 percent of the material vaporized while boiling is condensed.
The final amendments specify that biofilters are an option for
complying with the 95 percent reduction emission limit for batch
process vents (see Table
[[Page 40318]]
2 to subpart FFFF of part 63). Related amendments in 40 CFR
63.2460(c)(9) specify initial and continuous compliance requirements
for biofilters. A performance test must be conducted to demonstrate
initial compliance. Either temperature or organic monitoring devices
are required to demonstrate continuous compliance. Average temperatures
must be determined if you elect to measure temperature at several
locations in the biofilter bed. As for other types of control devices,
the amendments related to biofilters also cross-reference the testing
and continuous parameter monitoring system(s) (CPMS) requirements in 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS.
The final amendments add a compliance option in Table 3 of subpart
FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions
from process vents. A halogen atom mass flow rate emission limit of
0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) is allowed as an alternative to the
current emission limits that require either a 99 percent reduction or
control to an outlet concentration limit of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv). This mass emission limit applies to each individual
continuous process vent and to the collection of all batch process
vents within an MCPU.
The final amendments change several of the requirements for
wastewater. The concentrations and mass discharge rates of partially
soluble HAP (PSHAP), SHAP, and total HAP that define a Group 1
wastewater stream have been changed. The definition of the term ``point
of determination'' (POD) has been changed to specify that the point
where effluent is discharged from a scrubber or other control device is
a POD. Methyl ethyl ketone has been removed from the list of PSHAP in
Table 8 to subpart FFFF of part 63.\2\ A new 40 CFR 63.2485(o) requires
the CPMS records specified in 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) in addition to the
records specified in 40 CFR 63.147(d) for non-flare control devices.
Finally, a new compliance option is included in 40 CFR 63.2485(n) that
allows certain waste management units in a biotreatment system to be
uncovered if the wastewater being treated is Group 1 only for SHAP.
This option also allows lift stations with a volume larger than 10,000
gallons to have openings sized as necessary for proper venting as an
alternative to the currently specified vent pipe dimensions in 40 CFR
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A). Amendments in 40 CFR 63.2485(n) also added initial
compliance procedures that are specific to the new compliance option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MEK has been removed as a result of its removal from the CAA
section 112(b)(1) list of HAP. [70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For equipment leaks, the final amendments allow compliance with 40
CFR part 63, subpart H as an alternative to compliance with either 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F. The amendments
eliminate the option for existing sources of complying with 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT. However, the final amendments also allow two exceptions
to the three available options. First, for pumps at an existing
affected source, you may elect to comply with a leak definition of
10,000 parts per million (ppm) as an alternative to the leak
definitions specified in the cross-referenced rules. Second, for
connectors in gas service or light liquid service at any affected
source, you may elect to comply with the requirements for connectors in
heavy liquid service. The final amendments also specify that bench-
scale processes are exempt from the equipment leak requirements.
The final amendments eliminate reporting requirements for offsite
cleaning and reloading facilities that control emissions from rail cars
and tank trucks that are used in vapor balancing for storage tanks at
the affected source. For an offsite cleaning or reloading facility that
is subject to any other NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, the final
amendments specify that compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in the other rule demonstrates compliance
with the requirements in subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63.
Final amendments to 40 CFR 63.2445 clarify that an initial
compliance demonstration must be conducted within 150 days after any of
the following process changes: A Group 2 emission point becomes a Group
1 emission point, hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from the
sum of all process vents in a process increase to more than 1,000 lb/
yr, or a small control device for process vent or transfer rack
emissions becomes a large control device.
C. Monitoring Requirements
The final amendments include several changes to the parameter
monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2450(k). For halogen
scrubbers, monitoring caustic strength of the effluent is allowed as an
alternative to measuring pH. If the halogen scrubber controls emissions
only from batch process vents, the caustic strength or pH may be
measured daily instead of continuously. For absorbers that control
organic compounds and use water as the scrubbing fluid, liquid and gas
flow rates may be monitored instead of the parameters in the current
rule. The periodic verification option for control devices that control
less than 1 ton per year of HAP is now allowed for all control devices,
not just those that control only batch process vents.
D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
The final amendments reduce or eliminate recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) for Group 2 batch process vents. Recordkeeping is
eliminated for Group 2 batch process vents that are always controlled
with either a flare that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.987 or any
other control device that meets the requirements for Group 1 batch
process vents, provided the worst-case conditions for the control
device includes the contribution of all Group 2 batch process vents.
Reduced recordkeeping is allowed if non-reactive organic HAP is the
only HAP in the process and usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr or if
emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr. Estimating uncontrolled organic
HAP emissions is not required if you demonstrate that non-reactive
organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr. Data and supporting
rationale explaining why non-reactive organic HAP usage will be less
than 10,000 lb/yr must be included in your notification of compliance
status report.
The final amendments also reduce or clarify reporting requirements.
As clarification for process changes in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10), it
should be noted that a new MCPU is created when a new product is made
which is not part of an existing family of materials. Process changes
to an existing MCPU such as the addition of new or different equipment,
use of different feedstock, or addition of a parallel process may be a
change in the operating scenario, but do not constitute a new MCPU. The
definition of the term ``batch process vent'' has been amended to
eliminate reporting requirements associated with determinations that
emissions from batch operations have HAP emissions below the thresholds
for batch process vents. The final amendments eliminate the requirement
in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) of the final rule to provide a 60-day
advance notification before batch process vents change from Group 2 to
Group 1. Under the amended rule, you must document such a change in
status in your notification of compliance status report in accordance
with 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(i). We changed 40 CFR 63.2465(b) to specify
[[Page 40319]]
that the results of engineering assessments used to estimate
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions are to be
documented in your notification of compliance status report, not your
precompliance report. Finally, the amended rule requires operating logs
(and copies of the applicable logs in compliance reports) only for
processes with batch process vents from batch operations, not all
processes.
III. Response to Comments
A. Applicability
Comment: Although not directly related to the proposed amendments,
one commenter expressed concern that, despite previous attempts at
clarification, a potential for overlap and conflict between the
applicability provisions in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH) still exists. Based on the rules as currently written and
additional guidance from EPA (70 FR 25678, May 11, 2005), the commenter
understands that any process that produces a material that is used as a
coating is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. The commenter has
two concerns with this requirement. First, it is not clear which rule
applies to the production of materials that have both coating and non-
coating uses. Second, some coating manufacturing processes involve
traditional chemical manufacturing operations, including reactions,
which differ significantly from the processes consisting of mixing and
blending operations that were used to develop the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) floor and regulatory requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH. On the other hand, these processes are similar
to processes that were used to develop the MACT floor and regulatory
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
To resolve the conflicts, the commenter requested that we issue a
separate rulemaking to revise definitions in the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP. The commenter, in conjunction with other
companies, suggested changes to definitions in earlier communications
with EPA. If changes are made before the compliance dates of both
rules, needless effort to prepare and review precompliance reports for
these situations can be avoided.
Response: We share the commenter's concern about the potential for
conflict in applicability determinations. To clarify the applicability
and eliminate the conflict, we have proposed changes to the definition
of the term ``coating'' in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
NESHAP (71 FR 28639, May 17, 2006). One of the proposed changes would
clarify that only material produced by blending, mixing, dilution, or
other formulation operations would be a coating. Thus, a process that
involves only formulation operations would be subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHHH if the product is a coating. A second proposed change
would clarify applicability for processes that involve chemical
synthesis or separation of formulation components prior to the
formulation operations. If the synthesized or separated material is
stored as an isolated intermediate or final product prior to use in the
formulation operation, the synthesis or separation process is subject
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Thus, applicability of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF would end with the storage vessel fed from the synthesis
or separation operation, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH would apply
following storage through final production of the coating. When the
synthesized or separated component is not stored before use in a
formulation step, the second proposed change to the definition of the
term ``coating'' would specify that a coating does not include
materials made in processes where a formulation component is
synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity and then
transferred to another vessel (without storage) where it is formulated
to produce a material used as a coating. The preamble to these proposed
amendments to the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP states
that comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006.
Comment: One commenter described how they think several tanks in a
specific miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process would be
classified under the amended rule. According to the commenter, a molten
material from batch reactors is collected in tank A. Typically, the
material from tank A is sent to a continuous centrifuge to remove a
catalyst. The catalyst-free material is then transferred to either tank
B or tank C. Still molten, material in tanks B and C is either
transferred to rail cars for shipment or used onsite as feed material
for a flaker or pastille maker. The flaker and pastille maker operates
continuously, except when it is necessary to switch from one feed tank
to the other. The commenter believes tank A is a surge control vessel,
and tanks B and C are either storage tanks or surge control vessels.
Response: Although this is not the proper forum for a site-specific
applicability determination, we will provide a general assessment based
on the limited available information. Because it is managing the flow
of material into a continuous operation, tank A is a surge control
vessel. Since the material in tanks B and C is sometimes sold, these
tanks mark the end of the process, and the tanks are storage tanks. In
this case, the flaker and pastille maker is a separate process.
The determination would be more difficult if all of the material in
tanks B and C was used onsite. If material were sometimes added to and
withdrawn from these tanks simultaneously, then they would be managing
flow to a continuous operation, and they would be surge control
vessels. On the other hand, if it could be demonstrated that the tanks
are being used solely for storage, then the molten material would be an
isolated intermediate, and tanks B and C would be storage tanks. Note
that in table 1 to this preamble we describe a change in the final
amendments to the definition of ``isolated intermediates.'' This change
clarifies that storage equipment for isolated intermediates is part of
the MCPU that produces the isolated intermediate.
Comment: One commenter thinks polymer products should not be
regulated as ``volatile organic liquids'' under either subpart FFFF or
other regulatory programs because they have very high molecular weights
and negligible vapor pressure.
Response: Processes that produce certain polymer products are
regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF if HAP are used in the
process. However, only the HAP are subject to emission limits. The non-
HAP polymer products themselves are not subject to emission limits
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The requirements in other
regulatory programs are not addressed in this response: Because today's
action deals only with amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
B. Requirements for Process Vents
Comment: The proposed amendments included an additional compliance
option for batch process vents that would allow the use of biofilters
to comply with the 95 percent reduction option. One commenter requested
that this option be made available for continuous process vents as
well. The commenter realizes that, technically, biofilters may be used
to comply with the 98 percent reduction option in table 1 to subpart
FFFF, but the commenter
[[Page 40320]]
believes this is not feasible with current biofilter technology. To
support his request, the commenter noted that biofilters have
environmental benefits relative to the combustion devices they are
likely to supplant. Specifically, both the consumption of fossil fuels
and the generation of criteria pollutant emissions would be lower if
continuous process vents are controlled using biofilters. The commenter
also noted that there is no technological barrier to using biofilters
to control emissions from continuous operations, and there is
regulatory precedent for their use to control emissions from continuous
operations (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD and subpart UUUU).
Response: We have decided not to include the requested biofilter
option at this time. Although we agree that biofilters have some
environmental advantages over combustion devices, we are concerned that
the difference between 98 percent and 95 percent reduction in HAP
emissions is not offset by the benefits of reduced fuel use and
criteria pollutant emissions. Analysis of the offsets was not necessary
for batch process vents because the rule already included a 95 percent
reduction option before the biofilter option was proposed.
This issue is not closed. We have initiated a study to investigate
the applicability of biofilters for continuous process vent emissions
from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes. Some of
the things we would like to determine are as follows. What level of
control can be achieved? Does the level of control vary for different
HAP? What effect do other emission stream characteristics such as flow
rate and temperature have on the control efficiency? How much of the
HAP removed from the emission stream is transferred to wastewater
discharges? How much electricity is needed to run fans and pumps
associated with a biofilter? How much solid waste is generated by
biofilters, and how must it be disposed? Using the information
collected, we will also reassess the environmental impacts of
biofilters versus combustion devices. Depending on the results, we may
decide to propose some type of biofilter option for continuous process
vents in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF in the future.
Comment: One of the proposed amendments added a compliance option
for process vents that emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP. This
option, in entry 1.b. of Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63,
would allow compliance by reducing the ``halogen atom mass emission
rate to <=0.45 halogen HAP kg/hr by venting through a closed vent
system to a halogen reduction device.'' Three commenters noted that it
is unclear which vents need to be controlled when the collective
hydrogen halide and halogen emissions from all vents in a process are
at least 1,000 lb/yr. The commenters suggested clarifying that the
limit applies to each individual process vent. According to two of the
commenters, if a stream that is controlled to <0.45 kg/hr is in
compliance, then it seems logical that any uncontrolled stream from the
process that contains <0.45 kg/hr should also be in compliance.
Response: Application of the 0.45 kg/hr limit for hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP differs for batch and continuous process vents. It
applies to the sum of all batch vents and to each individual continuous
process vent. This approach is consistent with the way limits are
applied for organic HAP emissions from batch and continuous process
vents. The language in Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 has
been changed to clarify the requirements.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the language in
40 CFR 63.2450(o), which currently states that ``you may not use a
flare to control halogenated vent streams or hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP emissions.'' The commenter is concerned that this language
appears to prohibit all vent streams with hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP from flares, even if no control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
is required for the stream. To clarify the paragraph, the commenter
suggests changing it to read as follows: ``You may not use a flare to
control halogenated vent streams or as a control device for hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP emissions to comply with Table 3.''
Response: We have changed 40 CFR 63.2450(o) as suggested by the
commenter because the suggested language is consistent with our intent,
and it may eliminate confusion. If hydrogen halide and halogen HAP in a
vent stream must be controlled to meet the emission limits in Table 3
to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, then that vent stream may not be
vented to a flare. All other vent streams that contain hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP may be vented to a flare. For example, a continuous
process vent stream containing less than 0.45 kg/hr of hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP could be sent to the flare.
Comment: Two commenters noted that the language in entry 1.a of
Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 appears to require the use of
a single closed-vent system to convey hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
from all process vents in a process to a control device(s). According
to the commenters, this could be a problem because it is possible that
the process vents within a process that must be controlled may be
separated by distances that would make collection into a single closed-
vent system impractical or uneconomical. The commenters suggested
changing the language to allow for the use of a ``combination of
closed-vent systems.''
Response: We did not intend to force the use of a single control
device (or series of control devices) for all process vents within the
process. Therefore, we have changed entries 1.a and 1.b in Table 3 to
subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 to allow venting through ``one or more
closed-vent systems.'' We also amended entries 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c in
Table 2 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 in the same manner. These
changes provide flexibility to use as many separate control devices as
necessary.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the language in
40 CFR 63.2495(b)(1), which currently specifies that ``Hydrogen halides
that are generated as a result of combustion control must be controlled
according to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.994 and the requirements
referenced therein.'' The commenter is concerned that this language
appears to require the use of halogen reduction devices regardless of
the halogen atom concentration in the emission stream that is
combusted. This conflicts with provisions elsewhere in the rule that
require the use of halogen reduction devices only when halogenated vent
streams are combusted.
Response: To eliminate the inconsistency that the commenter
identified, we have amended 40 CFR 63.2495(b)(1) to require control of
hydrogen halides generated by combustion control only ``if any vent
stream routed to a combustion control is a halogenated vent stream.''
Comment: One commenter stated that regenerative thermal oxidizers
(RTO) should be recognized as a form of incineration that can be used
for control as long as any combined control system meets the 98 percent
control efficiency or outlet concentration limit.
Response: RTO are acceptable control devices under the rule.
Nothing in the rule prohibits their use alone or in combination with
other devices to meet specified emission limits for organic HAP.
C. Requirements for Wastewater
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the POD for
scrubbers. According to the commenter, the point where effluent is
discharged from a
[[Page 40321]]
scrubber should be a POD, and the effluent itself should be process
wastewater, only when the scrubber is used to comply with the emission
limits for process vents. The commenter suggested adding language like
that in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(1)(iii) of the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the requirements for
scrubber effluent need to be clarified. On July 1, 2005, we published
direct final rule amendments (70 FR 38554) and a parallel proposal (70
FR 38562) that specified requirements for effluent from control
devices. We later withdrew these amendments because of adverse comment
(70 FR 51269, August 30, 2005). As a result, the rule is now silent on
the requirements for scrubber effluent.
We disagree with the commenter's assertion that only scrubbers that
are used to meet emission limits for process vents should have a POD.
If a process operates a few hours per year, it may have Group 2 batch
process vent emissions with high HAP concentrations. If such emission
streams are controlled with a scrubber, we believe that the effluent
discharges should be considered for possible compliance with wastewater
requirements.
After consideration of the comment and evaluation of requirements
in other rules, we have decided to resolve the existing ambiguity by
modifying the definition of ``point of determination'' in the final
amendments. In general, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF references the
wastewater requirements in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G, including the POD definition in 40 CFR 63.111.
According to this definition, a POD is each point where process
wastewater exits the chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) (or
MCPU, in the case of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). However, the term
does not have the same meaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF as it
does in the HON due to an unintended consequence created by the
decision to exclude control devices from the MCPU (whereas they are
part of CMPU under the HON). To make the application of POD under 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF consistent with their application in the HON,
the final amendments include a freestanding (i.e., non-cross-
referenced) term ``point of determination'' in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) of 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. This revised definition specifies that a POD
is each point where process wastewater exits the MCPU or control
device.
As a result of this change, effluent discharge points from all
scrubbers, not just those that are used to meet emission limits for
process vents, are POD. Discharge points from other types of control
devices are also POD. The effluent also is process wastewater, as under
the HON. To determine if the effluent is subject to requirements for
wastewater, you must determine if it meets any of the Group 1
wastewater criteria, just like for other process wastewater streams.
Comment: Several commenters requested that methyl ethyl ketone
(MEK) be deleted from the list of PSHAP in Table 8 to subpart FFFF of
40 CFR part 63 because MEK was removed from the list of HAP in the CAA
on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75047). One of the commenters suggested a
separate rulemaking to address the situation before the compliance
date.
Response: We agree with the commenters that MEK should no longer be
listed in Table 8 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 because MEK has
been removed from the HAP list. Therefore, we removed MEK from Table 8
to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 in the final rule amendments.
D. Requirements for Equipment Leaks
Comment: One commenter requested that bench-scale operations be
exempt from the MON just as in the HON at 40 CFR 63.160(f) and 40 CFR
63.190(f), the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.1255(a)(6), and the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP at
40 CFR 63.1363(a)(6). The commenter states that the justification for
excluding bench-scale operations from the other rules, as stated in the
preamble to an amendment for the HON (60 FR 18071, April 10, 1995), is
equally applicable to the MON source category.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have corrected this
oversight by adding an exemption for bench-scale batch operations in a
new 40 CFR 63.2480(d). Although the term ``bench-scale batch
operations'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.161 of the HON, we also added the
same definition in the final amendments to 40 CFR 63.2550(i) because
the term is not defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or in 40 CFR part
65, subpart A.
Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed amendments to the
requirements for equipment leaks at existing sources in Table 6 to
subpart FFFF. These changes would eliminate the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TT option for MCPU with no continuous process vents in favor of a new
above-the-floor option that would require all MCPU to comply with
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, both
modified to allow sensory monitoring of connectors in place of Method
21 monitoring.
The commenter stated four objections to the proposed changes.
First, the commenter does not believe we have met the statutory
requirement to demonstrate that the costs of the new option are
reasonable, particularly for equipment in an MCPU with no continuous
process vents. To illustrate this concern, the commenter provided
information for an example pump and concluded that the additional cost
to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU instead of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT could be over $70,000 per ton of HAP removed.
Second, the commenter disagrees with our assertion that a
consistent set of options for all MCPU will simplify applicability
because this determination needs to consider other rules that apply at
the MON facilities. For example, if a facility with MON batch
operations is also subject to the Organic Liquid Distribution NESHAP,
for which 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT is a compliance option, then
eliminating the 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT option from the MON could
make applicability more complicated.
Third, even if the nationwide benefits of reduced connector
monitoring for continuous operations more than offsets the additional
nationwide burden to comply with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for all
MCPU, the commenter is concerned that the offsets are inequitably
distributed. Facilities primarily engaged in batch chemical
manufacturing would incur additional costs but receive little or no
benefit, whereas facilities that primarily operate continuous chemical
manufacturing processes will receive the benefits but incur little or
no cost.
Fourth, the commenter stated that the new leak detection and repair
(LDAR) options do not appropriately recognize the difference in
potential environmental impact between batch and continuous operations.
The commenter noted that, prior to the amendments, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF allowed for the fundamental differences of scale and modes
of operation between continuous and batch operations by properly
allocating the stringency of equipment leak requirements. The commenter
argued that the proposed change does neither. The higher stringency of
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU is appropriate for large continuous
operations but not for small batch operations.
Response: In the analysis for the proposed amendments, the MACT
floor
[[Page 40322]]
for all MCPU was an LDAR program equivalent to the requirements in 40
CFR part 63, subpart TT, and the above-the-floor option lowered the
leak definition for pumps and valves to the level specified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU. Although we stand by our original conclusion that
the average nationwide impacts of the proposed above-the-floor option
are reasonable, we also share the commenter's concern that the benefits
and costs are not distributed equitably among facilities with different
types of operations, especially when considering the leak detection and
repair program already implemented at the facility.
Upon closer examination of the results of the cost analysis, it is
clear that the incremental impacts for pumps in MCPU that have no
continuous process vents are much more significant than the impacts for
valves in those same processes and the impacts for MCPU that have
continuous process vents. To mitigate the excessive burden for batch
operations already in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, we
have modified the above-the-floor option to lower the pump leak
definition only for MCPU with continuous process vents (the option
still lowers the leak definition for valves in all MCPU). As a result
of this change, the incremental impacts for both batch and continuous
operations are reasonable. For the final amendments, we did not change
the language in Table 6 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., the
LDAR programs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU and 40 CFR part 65, subpart
F are still the starting point for all MCPU). However, new language in
40 CFR 63.2480(b)(5) and (c)(5) specifies that you may elect to comply
with a leak definition of 10,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service
in an MCPU that has no continuous process vents and is part of an
existing source.
In addition to the changes described above for pumps, the final
amendments also include an additional compliance option for equipment
leaks. Many facilities with processes that are subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFF also have processes that are subject to the equipment
leak provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The requirements in 40
CFR part 63, subpart H are substantially similar to the requirements in
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. Therefore, we decided to modify Table 6 of
subpart FFFF to 40 CFR part 63 to allow compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H as another alternative. This option provides additional
flexibility, and it may reduce the burden for some owners and operators
while achieving the same level of emissions control.
E. Initial Compliance Requirements
1. Design Evaluations
Comment: A proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.2450(h) would clarify
that the option to conduct a design evaluation instead of a performance
test for a small control device applies only to control devices used to
control process vents and transfer racks because other provisions in
the rule already allow design evaluations for storage tanks and
wastewater. Section 63.2450(h) also references the criteria for design
evaluations in 40 CFR 63.1257(a)(1) of the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP. One commenter believes it would be preferable to require
compliance with the design evaluation requirements in 40 CFR 63.985(b)
for small control devices used to meet the emission limits in Tables 1,
3, and 5 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, and require compliance with
40 CFR 63.1257(a)(1) only for control devices used to meet the emission
limits specified in Table 2 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63.
According to the commenter, referencing the design evaluation
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for the emission types subject
to Tables 1, 3, and 5 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 is appropriate
because the performance test and other requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS also apply to those emission types. The commenter also
recommended adding the following statement: ``For continuous process
vents the design evaluation shall be conducted at maximum
representative operating conditions for the process, unless the
Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions.''
Response: Although written in very different styles, the intent of
the design evaluation requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and
the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP are essentially the same, to the
extent they overlap. We decided not to reference both sets of
requirements because we believe it is clearer to reference only one
wherever possible. We selected the criteria in the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP because they are slightly more comprehensive than the
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (e.g., they include criteria
for scrubbers and non-regenerative carbon adsorbers). Furthermore, the
language in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP is nearly identical
to the language in 40 CFR 63.139 of the HON, which 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF references for wastewater control devices.
We agree with the commenter's suggested clarification regarding the
conditions under which the design evaluation should be conducted for a
control device that controls continuous process vents. This language is
borrowed from 40 CFR 63.997(e)(1)(i), and it will ensure that design
evaluations are conducted under the same conditions as performance
tests. It also complements the instructions in 40 CFR
63.2460(c)(2)(ii), which specify conditions under which a design
evaluation should be conducted for a control device that controls batch
process vents. Thus, we added the commenter's suggested language in 40
CFR 63.2450(h). Along these same lines, we also added a statement
specifying that a design evaluation for a control device that is used
to control transfer racks must demonstrate that the required efficiency
is achieved during the reasonably expected maximum transfer loading
rate.
2. Requirements After Process Changes
Comment: Proposed amendments in 40 CFR 63.2445(d), (e), and (f)
specify requirements that apply after various types of process changes.
In each case, the proposed amendments specify that a performance test
or design evaluation is required within 150 days of the process change.
Two commenters requested clarification of the proposed amendments
because they noted that an initial compliance demonstration does not
always require a performance test or design evaluation. For example,
one commenter pointed out that no performance test should be required
if the facility complies with the alternative standard or routes the
emission stream to a fuel gas system. The other commenter described a
situation where a performance test should not be required because a
previous test is still valid. According to this commenter, when
production is scaled up so that Group 2 batch process vents become
Group 1 batch process vents, production may be shifted to different
equipment for which initial compliance was previously demonstrated
under worst-case conditions that are not exceeded by the operating
scenario for the new process. To clarify the amendments, one commenter
suggested replacing the references to performance tests and design
evaluations with a reference to ``an initial compliance demonstration
as specified in this subpart.''
Response: Our intent was to require a performance test or design
evaluation after the specified types of process changes only when a
performance test or design evaluation would have been required to
demonstrate initial
[[Page 40323]]
compliance if the situation after the change had existed at the time
the facility first became subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The
commenters correctly observed that in some situations initial
compliance can be demonstrated without a performance test or design
evaluation, or it can be demonstrated using a previous performance
test. Therefore, we revised 40 CFR 63.2445(d), (e), and (f) in the
final rule amendments to require any applicable initial compliance
demonstration instead of requiring only a new performance test or
design evaluation.
3. Calculation of Uncontrolled Emissions
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the calculation of HAP
emissions from process condensers requires knowledge of condensate
receiver composition and condenser exit gas temperature (or direct
knowledge of exit gas stream composition). In most cases, data on the
condensate composition is not available. The commenter stated that
typical errors made in estimating emissions following process
condensers include use of condenser exit water temperature instead of
exit gas temperature, lack of an applied material balance, and use of
reactor vessel liquid phase mole fraction to determine partial pressure
of condensables in the condenser exit gas (single most common mistake).
When the operator has no knowledge of the liquid condensate mole
fractions, a material balance must be used to determine the mole
fractions present in equilibrium with the exiting emission stream. The
commenter provided an example of a material balance based on
noncondensables for a process operation involving toluene and xylene.
The commenter further points out that for process operations where
temperature and pressure are changing, the material balance may be
complex. In summary, the commenter stated that it is essential that the
noncondensable material balance be applied in conjunction with an
iterative solution to solve condensate liquid mole fraction for cases
where liquid composition in the receiver is not known.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the required procedures
to calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped with a
process condenser should be corrected to reflect the condenser exit gas
temperature and composition of the condensate. The following
assumptions apply for calculating uncontrolled emissions from process
vent from a process condenser:
(1) For all condenser calculations one would use the condenser exit
gas temperature and pressure as the reference conditions.
(2) It should be assumed that the condenser exit vent gas is in
equilibrium with the liquid condensate which is also leaving the
condenser based on the exit gas temperature. Therefore, the calculated
vapor pressure for each volatile component in the condensate would have
approximately the same calculated partial pressure of the same
component in the exit vent gas from the condenser.
(3) Dalton's Law would be used to calculate the partial pressure of
the noncondensable component (air, nitrogen, * * *) contained in the
condenser exit vent gas. This is where the sum of all of the partial
pressures is equal to the total system pressure and the partial
pressure of the noncondensable component would be calculated by
subtracting the sum of all volatile component vapor pressures from the
total system pressure.
(4) Material balance considerations should be taken into account
for each component at the condenser. The amount of each component that
enters the condenser should be approximately equal to the amount that
is calculated to leave the condenser through the exit vapor stream and
the exit condensate liquid stream.
(5) The amount of each component that is emitted from the condenser
should be determined first. The total HAP that are emitted from the
condenser may then be calculated from the component emission totals. It
is likely that many of the compounds that are emitted from the
condenser may not be HAP but would need to be calculated as part of the
overall condenser solution.
In all but the simplest cases (single component systems) the
solution to the condenser problem will require a numerical iteration as
part of the basic procedure. We are changing the procedures for
calculating emissions from condensers to be as technically correct as
possible. This is important because uncontrolled emission estimates are
used as a threshold for requiring installation and operation of control
devices.
Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, a new paragraph was
added at 40 CFR 63.2460(b)(4) to require the use of procedures in 40
CFR 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) to calculate uncontrolled batch process vent
emissions from a vessel equipped with a process condenser. Three
commenters noted that there are some batch process steps where a
process condenser is used, but the required equations do not adequately
estimate the emissions. The commenters cited the following as examples:
intermittent vents from continuous distillation columns, maintenance
purges, or regenerator operations. To estimate uncontrolled emissions
for such steps, the commenters believe 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF
should allow the use of engineering assessments in accordance with 40
CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.
According to one commenter, engineering assessments also should be
allowed for emission episodes covered by the equations if the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the Administrator that those methods are
not appropriate.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the specified equations
do not address all possible types of emission episodes from process
condensers, just as they do not address all possible types of emission
episodes directly from process equipment. Therefore, we have modified
40 CFR 63.2460(b)(4) in the final amendments to allow the use of
engineering assessments for types of emission episodes not covered by
the specified equations. However, the revised procedure for calculating
condenser emissions will always apply. We also added the provision that
allows engineering assessments covered by the equations in 40 CFR
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) if you can demonstrate that those methods are not
appropriate. These changes make the procedures for estimating
uncontrolled emissions from process condensers consistent with the
procedures for estimating uncontrolled emissions directly from process
equipment.
Comment: A proposed amendment in 40 CFR 63.2465(b) clarifies that
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions may be estimated
using either the equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) or an engineering
assessment in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), whichever is
appropriate. One commenter noted that in order to use an engineering
assessment for emission episodes covered by the equations, 40 CFR
63.1257(d)(2)(ii) requires a demonstration that the equations are not
appropriate. The commenter asked if information to support the
demonstration should be documented in the notification of compliance
status report.
Response: According to 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E), all information
must be documented in the precompliance report. However, we
[[Page 40324]]
understand that the emission equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) were
developed for organic HAP and decided that a demonstration that the
equations are not appropriate for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions would be an unnecessary burden. Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2465(b)
of the final amendments specifies that the information to support an
engineering assessment for estimating hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions must be submitted in the notification of compliance status
report.
F. Monitoring Requirements
1. Absorbers
Comment: Five commenters objected to the proposed amendments to the
monitoring requirements for absorbers in 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5). These
amendments would require continuous monitoring of liquid and gas flow,
and records of the liquid-to-gas ratio, in addition to the monitoring
and recordkeeping required in 40 CFR 63.990(c)(1), 63.993(c)(1), and
63.998(a)(2)(ii)(C). According to the commenters, the current
monitoring requirements (liquid temperature and specific gravity) are
sufficient to demonstrate compliance, and they believe we have not
explained why these requirements are inadequate. They also noted that
there is no precedent for the proposed monitoring (except for halogen
scrubbers, for which flow monitoring is already required in 40 CFR
63.994), and it would add significant burden and cost to monitoring
absorbers. Therefore, the commenters believe the proposed amendments
should not be finalized.
Response: Our intent was to require liquid and gas flow monitoring
only for absorbers where water is used as the scrubbing fluid. As the
commenters pointed out, the rule already requires this monitoring for
halogen scrubbers by referencing the requirements in 40 CFR 63.994.
However, water can also be used to scrub organic compounds from an
emission stream. We believe the same monitoring requirements that apply
to halogen scrubbers should also apply to any other absorber that uses
water as the scrubbing liquid. Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5) in the
final amendments has been revised to require the liquid and gas flow
monitoring only for absorbers that control organic compounds and use
water as the scrubbing fluid.
2. Organic Monitoring Devices
Comment: The proposed amendments added a new 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)
to specify requirements for biofilters that are used as control devices
for batch process vents. Section 63.2460(c)(9)(iii) specified
requirements for temperature monitoring devices and organic monitoring
devices. This section also indicated that general requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring system(s) (CEMS) are specified in 40
CFR 63.2450(j) and in Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. The
preamble to the proposed amendments explained that this rule language
means the quality assurance/quality control and other requirements for
CEMS in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 would apply to organic monitoring
devices. Three commenters disagreed with this statement. One of the
commenters pointed out that a CEMS must provide a record of the
emissions, whereas an organic monitoring device is required to provide
an indication of concentration. As an example, this commenter noted
that the monitored parameter for an organic monitoring device could be
a calibrated indicator of HAP concentration such as the millivolts
generated by a concentration sensor. According to another commenter,
the references to CEMS in the amended explanations for citations in
Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 should be applicable only to
CEMS that are used for compliance with the alternative standard in 40
CFR 63.2505. Thus, the three commenters recommended removing the
proposed changes from 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)(iii), Table 12 to subpart
FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, and all associated preamble discussions.
Response: The commenters' interpretation of the differences in
requirements for CEMS and organic monitoring devices is correct.
Requirements for CEMS were inappropriately applied to organic
monitoring devices in 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)(iii) of the proposed
amendments, and they have been removed from the final amendments. As a
result of these changes, the use of an organic monitoring device with a
biofilter is subject to the parameter monitoring requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS. All other organic monitoring devices, except those
used with controls for wastewater systems, are also subject to the
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Organic monitoring devices
used with controls for wastewater systems are subject to the similar
parameter monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the
HON.
We disagree with the comments regarding the proposed changes in
Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. Nothing in the rule
prohibits the use of a CEMS to monitor pollutant concentrations to
demonstrate continuous compliance with a percent reduction requirement.
For example, a control device might reduce HAP concentrations to less
than 100 ppm. This would not be enough to demonstrate compliance with
the alternative standard, but it might be more than 98 percent
reduction. Most owners and operators in this situation might choose to
comply with the organic monitoring device provisions and monitor a
parameter like the millivolts generated by the concentration sensor.
That would be acceptable. However, you also have the option to directly
monitor the concentration. We believe that monitoring the concentration
continuously makes the equipment a CEMS, and the requirements for CEMS
should apply. The proposed changes to Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40
CFR part 63 make it clear that requirements for CEMS apply anytime a
CEMS is used (i.e., emissions concentrations are continuously
monitored), but they do not apply to an organic monitoring device.
Thus, the proposed changes to Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part
63 are retained in the final amendments.
3. Scrubber Monitoring
Comment: Sections 63.994(c) and 63.2450(k)(3) require continuous
monitoring of either pH or caustic strength in the effluent from
halogen scrubbers. One commenter argued that the requirement for
continuous monitoring is ``arbitrary and particularly burdensome to
batch operators'' and should be changed to daily monitoring to match
the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP and the Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production NESHAP.
Response: We decided to modify 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(3) in the final
amendments to allow daily monitoring of pH or caustic strength as an
alternative to continuous monitoring for halogen scrubbers used to
control only batch process vents. This change minimizes the burden for
batch operations and brings the monitoring requirements for such
operations at MON sources in line with the monitoring requirements for
batch operations at pharmaceutical and pesticide active ingredient
(PAI) sources.
4. Periodic Verification
Comment: Section 63.2460(c)(5) of the final rule specifies
alternative monitoring provisions, called periodic verifications, for
control devices that control less than 1.0 ton per year HAP from batch
process vents. One commenter suggested that the periodic
[[Page 40325]]
verification option should be available for monitoring control devices
that control emissions from all types of emission points, not only
batch process vents. To support this suggestion, the commenter noted
that both the proposed rule (67 FR 16154, April 4, 2002) and the
pharmaceuticals production NESHAP did not limit the use of the periodic
verification provision to batch process vents.
Response: The purpose of the periodic verification option is to
minimize the monitoring burden on small operations that are expected to
contribute only a small fraction of the total emissions. We agree with
the commenter that there is no need to restrict the option to controls
for batch process operations. As the commenter noted, the proposed rule
and other rules (pharmaceuticals production and PAI production) did not
limit the option to controls for batch process vents. To correct this
inadvertent oversight, the final amendments move the periodic
verification requirements from 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(5) to 40 CFR
63.2450(k)(6) so that they will apply to control devices that control
less than 1.0 ton per year of HAP from any emission points.
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
1. Wastewater Control Devices
Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, a new paragraph with
recordkeeping requirements for flare monitors was added in 40 CFR
63.2485(o)(1). One commenter believes the proposed provision mistakenly
references requirements for nonflares. The commenter recommended
revising the proposed language to match the subpart SS recordkeeping
requirements for flares.
Response: Flares that are used to control wastewater emissions are
subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the HON.
The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(1) was added to make the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flares used to control
wastewater systems consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR
63.998(a)(1)(iii) of subpart SS. Since proposal of the amendments we
realized that the proposed language is unnecessary because 40 CFR
63.147(d)(1) contains the same recordkeeping requirement, and Table 20
to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 (as referenced from 40 CFR 63.146(e)(1))
contains the same reporting requirement. Therefore, the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(1) were not included in the final
amendments.
Comment: According to one commenter, the proposed 40 CFR
63.2485(o)(2) creates a recordkeeping conflict for nonflare control
devices used for wastewater emissions. The section requires compliance
with both 40 CFR 63.152(f) of subpart G and 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) of
subpart SS. Because some of the requirements are not consistent with
each other, the commenter recommended revising 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(2) to
read, ``you must keep records as specified either in Sec. 63.998(c)(1)
or Sec. 63.152(f) in addition to the other records required in Sec.
63.147(d).''
Response: We disagree with the suggested change. Section 63.152(f)
specifies requirements such as the frequency of monitoring
measurements, procedures for developing daily or other average values,
and the amount of time records must be kept. These procedures would
overlap with procedures in 40 CFR 63.998(b), but subpart FFFF does not
reference 40 CFR 63.998(b) for wastewater control devices. On the other
hand, 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) requires records of information such as
calibration results, periods when the CPMS is inoperative, and the
occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of CPMS.
For a source subject to the HON, comparable records may be required by
40 CFR 63.103, but this section of the HON is not referenced from 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Therefore, we retained the proposed
requirement in the final amendments so that the same CPMS monitoring
records are required for non-flare control devices regardless of the
emission point that is controlled.
2. Operating Logs
Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, Sec. Sec.
63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C), 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K), and 63.2525(c) were
modified to require operating logs only for ``processes with batch
vents.'' The preamble to the proposed amendments also stated that
operating logs are not needed for processes that consist entirely of
continuous operations. Two commenters agree with the preamble language,
but they noted that the proposed rule language still requires operating
logs for continuous operations with intermittent emissions because
these operations fit the definition of ``batch vents.'' Therefore, the
commenters recommended changing the proposed language to refer to batch
``operations.''
Response: As the commenters noted, by referring to ``processes with
batch vents,'' the proposed rule language did not fully accomplish our
goal as stated in the proposal preamble because continuous operations
with intermittent emissions are defined as batch process vents.
Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C), 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K), and
63.2525(c) were revised in the final amendments to require operating
logs only for ``processes with batch process vents from batch
operations.''
3. Frequency of Recordkeeping Calculations for Group 2 Batch Process
Vents
Comment: Sections 63.2520(e)(2) and (3) of the proposed amendments
specified recordkeeping requirements for MCPU with Group 2 batch
process vents for which you documented that the amount of non-reactive
HAP used is less than 10,000 lb/yr or the uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr. These sections also require you to
calculate daily rolling annual sums of either the non-reactive HAP
usage or number of batches operated. Data may be accumulated for up to
a month, and all calculations for each day in the month may be
performed at one time. One commenter requested that these daily rolling
annual sums be changed to monthly rolling annual sums.
According to the commenter, calculations on a daily basis will add
to the compliance burden because a new system would be needed to ensure
that production is assigned to the correct day. Of particular concern
to the commenter is how to comply when a batch operates for longer than
1 day. The commenter believes that new procedures will need to be
developed to arbitrarily assign products to individual days during the
batch cycle. On the other hand, the commenter pointed out that many
facilities already have monthly recordkeeping systems in place under
their title V permits, and these systems include procedures to ensure
that the monthly data is complete and accurate.
The commenter also argued that the daily calculations would not
provide better information than monthly calculations. According to the
commenter, the purpose of both procedures is to ``track emissions from
processes that are well below the Group 1 process vent standards,'' and
a monthly sum would ensure this threshold was not exceeded.
Response: We rejected the suggestion to change the rolling annual
sums from a daily to monthly basis for several reasons. First, daily
calculation of the annual usage or number of batches is consistent with
the basis for the 10,000 lb/yr emission threshold for Group 1 batch
process vents. Less frequent calculations increases the potential that
[[Page 40326]]
short-term fluctuations and periods of non-compliance will be masked.
Second, usage at 10,000 lb/yr is not necessarily ``well below'' the
Group 1 emission threshold of 10,000 lb/yr. For example, usage may
nearly equal batch process vent emissions for a process that consists
of little more than a batch reactor. Third, we are not persuaded that
the burden to collect data for daily calculations will be significantly
different than collecting data for monthly calculations. The
fundamental information about production and HAP usage that would be
collected for monthly calculations most likely would be developed on a
batch or daily basis. Handling data for processes that take more than
one day also should not be difficult. Any consistent procedure should
be acceptable. For example, your system could account for each batch on
the day the batch is completed. Similarly, the amount of non-reactive
HAP used in each batch could be assigned to the day the batch is
completed, or you could elect to define some procedure to assign a
percentage of the total usage to each day over which the process
operated.
H. Overlap With Other Rules
Comment: The proposed amendments modified provisions in 40 CFR
63.2535(k) that are intended to minimize the burden of complying with
equipment leak requirements when both 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and
another rule apply to the same process. The first sentence in this
section specifies that an owner or operator may elect to comply with
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF for equipment that is part of the
affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and is also subject
to either 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. If
an owner or operator elects this method of compliance, the proposed
second sentence requires all organic compounds, minus methane and
ethane, to be considered as if they were HAP. One commenter noted that
in this context the second sentence is unnecessary because all of the
equipment described by the first sentence must be in HAP service.
However, the commenter believes that this section also should allow
sources to apply the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF to
equipment in an MCPU that is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or
40 CFR part 61, subpart V, but is not subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF. The commenter notes that this requirement in conjunction
with the proposed second sentence would make sense, and together these
provisions would be consistent with 40 CFR 63.160(c) of the HON.
Response: Our intent with the proposed amendments was to include
provisions in 40 CFR 63.2435(k) that are consistent with the provisions
in 40 CFR 63.160(c) of the HON. We inadvertently neglected to include
the first sentence from 40 CFR 63.160. Therefore, the final amendments
to 40 CFR 63.2535(k) include the additional sentence as suggested by
the commenter to make the provisions consistent with the provisions in
40 CFR 63.160(c).
Comment: Section 63.2535(c) specifies provisions that are intended
to minimize the compliance burden when 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and
another rule (either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or 40 CFR part 61,
subpart Y) apply to the same storage tank. One commenter requested that
this section be revised to include provisions similar to those for
equipment leaks in 40 CFR 63.2535(k). The commenter believes such
provisions would simplify compliance for storage tanks that are
assigned to an MCPU but are not subject to the storage tank
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF because they contain
little or no HAP. According to the commenter, such flexibility is
provided in the HON.
Response: Although a storage tank with little or no HAP may be
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y and
also be assigned to an MCPU, there is essentially no overlap because no
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF apply to such a tank. This
situation is similar to that for shared storage tanks that are assigned
to a process unit that is subject to one rule but is also used with a
process unit that is subject to another rule. Unlike the situation for
equipment leaks, we believe any reduction in burden achieved by
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF for storage tanks in an
MCPU that are not subject to requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF would be negligible. Furthermore, the HON does not include the
provisions described by the commenter. Therefore, we have decided not
to amend 40 CFR 63.2435(c) as suggested by the commenter.
I. Definitions
1. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process
Comment: As part of the amendments, the definition of
``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process'' in 40 CFR
63.2550(i) was changed to specify an endpoint to processes that
manufacture solid products. One commenter concurred with the concept of
defining an end point for such processes. However, the commenter is
concerned that the proposed definition could be misapplied on polymer
production processes that have no dryer and no extruder or die-plate.
The commenter explained that their solid-state polymerization process
for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) operates without any of this
equipment. The finished polymer is discharged from the reactors as a
coarse, ready-to-use powder. Without clarification, the commenter is
concerned that the proposed definition conceivably extends the PET
process into the subsequent film manufacturing process, which would
conflict with previous guidance EPA has provided regarding the
applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. To clarify this
situation, the commenter suggested the endpoint for solid-state
polymerization processes be ``at the container or vessel used to
collect or store the reacted polymer if subsequent drying is not
required and the polymer is in a form amenable to its intended
manufacturing purpose.''
Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed definition
needs to be modified to clarify the endpoint of a solid-state
polymerization process that does not include a dryer. We believe the
reactor is the appropriate end of such a process, provided there are no
HAP removal steps following the reactor. This point is comparable to
the end points specified for other processes that manufacture solid
products. The definition in the final amendments has been revised to
reflect this decision.
Comment: In addition to the proposed endpoint described above for
processes that produce solid products, one commenter thinks the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process definition also
should specify an endpoint for processes that produce liquid products.
The commenter cited acrylic polymer manufacturing processes as examples
of processes for which an endpoint is needed. According to the
commenter, after the polymerization reaction, the product is an
emulsion of polymer solids in water, and the residual HAP monomer
concentration generally is low. The commenter suggested that EPA could
establish an option that would exempt from regulation all processing
steps after the point where the residual HAP monomer falls below some
reasonable threshold concentration. The commenter pointed to the 5
weight percent HAP option in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
NESHAP as a good example.
Response: This comment is similar to several comments on the
original
[[Page 40327]]
proposed rule. The earlier commenters wanted the rule to exempt
processing steps where the HAP content is less than 5 weight percent or
HAP is present only as an impurity. In our response to those comments
(see docket item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121-0036), we explained that the
rule includes numerous applicability cutoffs and exemptions that we
think are sufficient.
For example, equipment leak requirements do not apply to equipment
that contains or contacts fluid that is less than 5 percent organic HAP
by weight. Storage tanks are not subject to requirements if the stored
material has a maximum true vapor pressure less than 6.9 kilopascals.
Emissions from transfer operations are exempt if the rack-weighted
average partial pressure of organic HAP is less than 1.5 pounds per
square inch absolute. Emissions from many continuous process operations
are exempt if the HAP content is less than 0.005 weight percent, and
emissions from other continuous operations and batch operations are
exempt if the HAP concentration is less than 50 ppm. In addition,
continuous process vents are exempt from some or all requirements if
the total resource effectiveness, which is inversely related to the HAP
emission rate, is greater than 1.9 or 5.0, respectively. Batch process
vents are exempt from all but some recordkeeping requirements if the
total organic HAP emissions from the collection of all batch vents in
the process are less than 10,000 lb/yr. Strictly speaking, all Group 1
batch process vents are subject to control, regardless of their
emission rate, but vents with low emission rates may not actually have
to be controlled if the control or recovery from other vents in the
process meets the overall reduction requirement. All of these exemption
levels are based directly or depend on concentration of HAP.
Furthermore, they were all developed as part of the MACT floor.
Although our earlier response did not address the issue of
emulsions (or dispersions), we do not believe this should have any
bearing on the exemption levels because such fluids are managed the
same as other liquids. Finally, the 5 weight percent option in the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP is not comparable or
relevant to this discussion. That 5 percent limit was based on a
determination that reducing the HAP content of existing HAP-based
coating products to less than 5 percent would achieve comparable
reductions to the MACT floor. A similar analysis is not feasible for
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes. Therefore, we
do not believe an additional exemption level is needed, and we have not
created an exemption as suggested by the commenter.
2. Continuous Process Vent
Comment: Two commenters strongly objected to the proposed changes
introduced in the new item 7 in the definition of the term ``continuous
process vent.'' The proposed language specified, in part, that ``when a
gas stream that originates as a continuous flow from a continuous
operation is combined with gas streams from other process operations
[], the determination of whether the gas stream is a continuous process
vent must be made prior to the combination of the gas streams.'' One of
the commenter's concerns was that the proposed changes will alter how
some vents are handled under the HON and other NESHAP because the
proposed language is not confined to gas streams from MCPU. For
example, emission streams from batch operations within a HON process
(which are batch process vents under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) that
are combined with emissions from continuous operations within the HON
process should not affect the point at which a continuous process vent
is determined under the HON.
The commenters also believe the proposed regulatory language is far
more expansive than needed to satisfy our stated reason for the change
in the preamble, which they noted was to meet our intent that
continuous process vents and batch process vents be separate, distinct
streams. According to the commenters, only the mixing of potential
continuous process vents with Group 2 process vents needs to be
addressed because the rule is already clear that anything mixed with
Group 1 batch process vents must be controlled. Furthermore, mixing
potential continuous process vents with any other types of emission
streams is already addressed by the referenced language in 40 CFR
63.107 of the HON and is consistent with the database used to determine
the MACT floor for continuous process vents. As a result, both
commenters strongly recommended revising the proposed language to
minimize differences from the continuous process vent provisions in the
HON.
Response: We agree with the commenter's assessment that several
changes are needed to avoid confusion over the regulatory status of
continuous process vents. First, the proposed language should have
specified that the continuous operations of interest were only those in
MCPU because we did not intend to affect determinations under other
rules. After reconsideration, we also decided that there is no need to
address the combination of potential continuous process vents and batch
process vents. As the commenters pointed out, if a combined stream
includes Group 1 batch process vents, the combined stream must be
controlled as required for the Group 1 batch process vents. However,
note that when Group 2 batch process vent emissions are combined with
emissions from potential continuous process vents, the recordkeeping
requirements for the Group 2 batch process vents still apply. In
addition, by referring only to other process operations in the proposed
language, we were trying to indicate that continuous process vent
determinations could be downstream of the point where emissions from
continuous process operations combine with emissions from storage
tanks, wastewater systems, or other sources, consistent with 40 CFR
63.107.
Although our discussion in the preamble to the proposed amendments
neglected to explain it, a related objective of the proposed language
was to ensure that separate determinations are made for emissions from
each MCPU. This concept is not part of the provisions in 40 CFR 63.107,
and we continue to believe that it is important because it is
consistent with the data used to develop the MACT floor for continuous
process vents. Therefore, in the final amendments, we have revised item
7 in the definition of ``continuous process vent'' to specify that
separate determinations are required for the emissions from each MCPU,
even if emission streams from two or more MCPU are combined.
3. Continuous Operation
Comment: One commenter believes the definition of the term
``continuous operation'' should allow for the interruption of product
flow during a switch from one feed tank to another if the materials are
similar in nature. The commenter described a situation where a flaker
or pastille maker is fed from either of two storage tanks. The
commenter noted that the flaker and pastille maker equipment operates
continuously, except when switching from one feed tank to the other.
Response: We have not changed the definition in the final rule
because the rule already allows you to consider an operation to be a
continuous operation even if there are periodic breaks in operation. We
think the commenter may be misinterpreting the definition of ``batch
operation.'' Although this definition says a batch operation
[[Page 40328]]
involves intermittent or discontinuous feed, it also says addition of
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a
batch operation. Both conditions must be met to be a batch operation.
Thus, even though there may be a break in operation when switching from
one feed tank to another, as long as material is being added and
withdrawn simultaneously while it is in operation, it is a continuous
operation.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that in our discussion of
changes to the definition of ``continuous process vent,'' we appeared
to conclude that all atmospheric dryers are continuous operations with
continuous process vents. The preamble stated that many atmospheric
dryers ``have emission characteristics that are sufficiently similar to
other continuous process vents in our database such that they should be
included in the definition of ``continuous process vents.'' The
commenter argued that atmospheric dryers used in batch specialty
chemical manufacturing are substantively dissimilar to continuous
process vents because emissions vary with time as a function of the
batch cycle. Therefore, the commenter requested that we clarify that
atmospheric dryer vents can be either batch or continuous process vents
and that the classification is determined by an evaluation of the
emission characteristics of the vent.
Response: The commenter is correct. Some atmospheric dryers are
continuous operations with continuous process vents and others are
batch operations with batch process vents. We did not mean to imply
otherwise. As part of our analysis of the MACT floor for continuous
process vents, we determined the characteristics of controlled dryers
in both our continuous process database and batch process database. We
confirmed that some of these dryers were continuous operations. Other
dryers with controlled emissions were confirmed to be batch operations,
and these were excluded from our analysis of continuous process vents.
4. Process Condenser and Recovery Device
Comment: Two commenters believe the proposed definition of the term
``process condenser'' is too expansive. The proposed definition reads
as follows:
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of an MCPU. A primary condenser
or condensers in series are considered to be integral to the MCPU if
they are capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering
chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use,
reuse or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. All condensers
recovering condensate from an MCPU at or above the boiling point or
all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered
process condensers.
One of the commenters recommended modifying the definition to
clarify that a condenser is not ``integral to the process'' if the
condenser was intended to be a control device and it can be
demonstrated that the process could technically or economically operate
without it. This commenter described a situation where several
condensers are used in a process to recover materials from gas streams.
Condensate from these condensers is collected in single vessel and
later reused in the process. Displaced gases from the collection vessel
are routed through another condenser. Even though the final condenser
recovers small amounts of material that are re-used, the commenter does
not think it should be a process condenser.
The second commenter requested changes that would allow condensers
to be considered an integral part of recovery devices. According to the
commenter, if HAP are to be recovered from a vapor stream that is at a
temperature below their bubble point, condensation must be involved at
some point. For example, condensation may be necessary to dehumidify a
vent stream before it enters a carbon adsorber. The commenter suggested
two ways that the rule could be modified to allow condensers to be part
of recovery devices. One way would be to modify the definition of the
term ``process condenser'' to exclude condensers that meet the
conditions of the second sentence of the proposed definition if those
condensers also receive an emission stream that is below its bubble
point, and they are located prior to any recovery device that is not a
condenser. Alternatively, the commenter suggested editing the
definition of the term ``recovery device'' to delete condensers from
the list of examples of equipment that may be recovery devices, and
indicate that the remaining examples of recovery devices include any
integral condensation equipment.
Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments,
the main purpose of proposing a new definition was to align the
requirements in the rule with the data that were used to develop the
MACT floor for batch process vents. The final rule referenced the
definition of ``process condenser'' in the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP. According to this definition, a condenser is a process
condenser only if it supports a vapor-to-liquid phase change for
periods of source equipment operation that are above the boiling or
bubble point of substances at the liquid surface. Petitioners objected
to this definition because they explained that it is inconsistent with
the way industry representatives interpreted the term when they
reported uncontrolled emissions in response to our information
collection request (ICR) in 1997. They indicated that companies
considered condensers to be integral to a process whenever condensate
was returned to the process or used for fuel value, even if the inlet
gas stream was at a temperature below the boiling or bubble point of
the corresponding liquid. Thus, the final rule requires determination
of uncontrolled emissions at different points than had been used in the
processes that formed the basis for the MACT floor and the 10,000 lb/yr
uncontrolled emissions threshold for Group 1 batch process vents.
To align the rule with the data provided in the ICR responses, we
developed the proposed definition as shown above. One consequence of
this definition is that it will reduce the number of condensers that
can be used to comply with the 95 percent reduction recovery device
option because designation as a process condenser is intended to
preclude the recovery option. After considering the comments and review
of the data, we have decided that the proposed definition is more
expansive than it needs to be to address the issue raised by the
petitioners. None of the 44 processes in the project data base that
were used to establish the 10,000 lb/yr threshold for Group 1 batch
process vents was controlled with a non-condenser recovery device.
Therefore, we believe that condensers can be considered as part of a
recovery device if they are followed by a device that is clearly a
recovery device, and the condenser is needed for the proper functioning
of the downstream recovery device. Rather than leave this determination
open to subjective determinations, we decided to specify such
exceptions to the process condenser definition in the definition
itself. These situations involve condensers that remove moisture in
order to prevent icing in a following condenser, remove moisture that
would negatively affect adsorption capacity in a following carbon
adsorber, or remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other
organic compounds prior to a carbon adsorber if those compounds would
be difficult to
[[Page 40329]]
remove during regeneration of the carbon.
In the preamble to the proposed amendments, we noted that the
proposed definition of ``process condenser'' makes the concept of
recovering chemicals with a condenser the same regardless of whether
the vent is associated with a batch unit operation or a continuous unit
operation. This was our intent, and, in addition, the recovery device
definition also needs to be modified to allow recovery of chemicals for
fuel value by devices associated with continuous process vents. To
correct this oversight, the recovery device definition in the final
amendments has been changed to allow equipment that is associated with
continuous process vents to be a recovery device when it recovers
chemicals for fuel value. The final definition retains the intent of
the original definition for recovery devices that are used to reduce
emissions from batch process vents; this equipment must recover
chemicals to be reused in a process on site.
Finally, all of the changes described above have created a conflict
between the definition of ``process condenser'' and ``recovery
device.'' Both definitions refer to recovery of chemicals for fuel
value, use, or reuse. Thus, a condenser could meet both definitions.
However, a process condenser is part of the MCPU and can not be
considered a control device to meet the 95 percent control alternative
in table 2.
J. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections
We have made several changes throughout subpart FFFF to correct
inconsistencies that have been discovered during the review processes.
Other editorial changes have also been made to improve clarity. These
changes are described in Table 1 in this preamble.
Table 1.--Miscellaneous Technical Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
FFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of subpart FFFF Description of correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2) and Replaced the word ``produces'' with
63.2525(e)(1)(i). the word ``generates'' to clarify
that generation of any HAP, not
only HAP that are an intended
product, makes the MCPU subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
40 CFR 63.2450(d), (e), and (f)... 1. Redesignated paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) as paragraphs (e)(1), (2),
and (3).
2. Reserved paragraph (d).
3. Added a new paragraph (f) to
clarify flare compliance assessment
procedures. Section 63.11(b)(6) of
the General Provisions contains
alternative procedures for flares
that control hydrogen emissions.
The alternative procedures are not
included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS. The new provisions in paragraph
(f) clarify that the alternative in
the General Provisions is available
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
40 CFR 63.2470(e)(2)(i) and (ii) Offsite cleaning and reloading
and 63.2535(a)(2). facilities must control emissions
from tank trucks and railcars that
are used in vapor balancing for
storage tanks at the affected
source. The final amendments
include these new paragraphs to
specify that such facilities may
comply with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in other applicable
rules in 40 CFR part 63 as an
alternative to the requirements in
subpart FFFF. These changes make
the requirements consistent with
parallel requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGG.
40 CFR 63.2485(n)(2)(iv)(B)....... Replaced ``Fbio'' with ``fbio.''
40 CFR 63.2520(d)(2)(ix).......... Replaced incorrect reference to 40
CFR 63.2535(i)(1) with correct
reference to 40 CFR 63.2535(l)(1).
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(9) and Restored references to 40 CFR part
63.2525(a). 63, subpart UU that were mistakenly
removed in the proposed amendments.
40 CFR 63.2525(e)(1)(iii)......... Replaced the undefined term ``Group
2 batches'' with the defined term
``Group 2 batch process vents.''
40 CFR 63.2550(b)................. Added reference to terms defined in
section 63.2 of 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F.
40 CFR 63.2550(c)................. Did not finalize proposed amendment
that mistakenly removed this
paragraph.
40 CFR 63.2550(i) introductory Restored reference to 40 CFR
text. 63.1020, which was mistakenly
removed in the proposed amendments.
40 CFR 63.2550(i)................. 1. Added definitions for the term
``emission point''.
2. Added a sentence to the
definition of ``isolated
intermediate'' to clarify that the
storage equipment is part of the
process that produces the isolated
intermediate, not a process that
uses the isolated intermediate as a
raw material. The new sentence also
clarifies that isolated
intermediate storage equipment is
not subject to the storage tank
assignment procedures in 40 CFR
63.2445(d).
Table 3........................... Removed the extraneous word ``with''
from item 1.a.
Tables 4 and 5.................... Replaced references to 40 CFR 63.984
with references to 40 CFR
63.982(d). 40 CFR 63.982(d) not
only references 40 CFR 63.984, but
it also makes it clear that
requirements for boilers and
process heaters do not apply to
fuel gas systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in 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 entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 40330]]
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The final amendments give owners and operators options to some
requirements. For example, biofilters are allowed as an option to meet
the emission limit for batch process vents. Other changes may result in
a minor reduction in the burden. For example, one option allows an
owner or operator to conduct sensory monitoring as an alternative to
instrument monitoring of connectors. Another change eliminates the
requirement to include data and results from an engineering assessment
of emissions from batch operations in the precompliance report if the
HAP concentration is determined to be less than 50 ppmv. Since all of
these changes are either options or have the potential to result in
minor reductions in the information collection burden, the ICR has not
been revised.
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533 (EPA ICR number
1969.02). A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be obtained from Susan
Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-
1672. Include the ICR or OMB number in any correspondence.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule amendments.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule amendments
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
ranging from up to 500 employees to up to 1,000 employees, depending on
the NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The
maximum number of employees to be considered a small business for each
NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178).
After considering the economic impacts of the final rule amendments
on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The
final amendments include additional compliance options for process
tanks, batch process vents, equipment leaks, and SHAP-containing
wastewater that provide small entities with greater flexibility to
comply with the standards. Other amendments potentially reduce the
recordkeeping and reporting burden. We have therefore concluded that
the final rule amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures 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, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA 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 amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual costs of the
final rule for any year was estimated to be about $75 million, and the
final amendments do not add new requirements that would increase that
cost. Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the final amendments
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because they contain no requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore,
the final
[[Page 40331]]
amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' 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.''
The final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected
facilities are owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' The final rule amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final
rule amendments provide an owner or operator with several additional
options for complying with the emission limits and other requirements
in the rule. Therefore, the final rule amendments 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the final amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that 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 the Agency.
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. The final amendments are not
subject to the Executive Order because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule amendments do not constitute a ``significant energy
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The final amendments include additional compliance options that
provide affected sources with greater flexibility to comply with the
standards. Further, we have concluded that the final rule amendments
are not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No.
104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and
applicable VCS.
During the rulemaking, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to EPA test methods referenced by the final rule. The
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket
for the NESHAP (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121). The final amendments do
not require the use of any additional technical standards beyond those
cited in the final rule. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of
any additional VCS for the final amendments.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing the
final rule amendments and other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
final rule amendments 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). The
final rule amendments are effective on July 14, 2006.
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: June 23, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart FFFF--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.2435 is amended by:
0
a. Revising ``product transfer racks'' to read ``transfer racks'' in
paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(4); and
[[Page 40332]]
0
e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1987 version of SIC
code 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except as provided in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(ii) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1997 version of
NAICS code 325, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) The MCPU processes, uses, or generates any of the organic HAP
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP,
as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
* * * * *
(c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Fabricating operations (such as spinning or compressing a solid
polymer into its end use); compounding operations (in which blending,
melting, and resolidification of a solid polymer product occur for the
purpose of incorporating additives, colorants, or stabilizers); and
extrusion and drawing operations (converting an already produced solid
polymer into a different shape by melting or mixing the polymer and
then forcing it or pulling it through an orifice to create an extruded
product). An operation is not exempt if it involves processing with HAP
solvent or if an intended purpose of the operation is to remove
residual HAP monomer.
* * * * *
(7) Carbon monoxide production.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.2445 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) and the first sentence in paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than May 10, 2008.
(c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.2515
according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of
this part 63. * * *
(d) If you have a Group 2 emission point that becomes a Group 1
emission point after the compliance date for your affected source, you
must comply with the Group 1 requirements beginning on the date the
switch occurs. An initial compliance demonstration as specified in this
subpart must be conducted within 150 days after the switch occurs.
(e) If, after the compliance date for your affected source,
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from process vents in a
process increase to more than 1,000 lb/yr, or HAP metals emissions from
a process at a new affected source increase to more than 150 lb/yr, you
must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 3 to
this subpart and the associated compliance requirements beginning on
the date the emissions exceed the applicable threshold. An initial
compliance demonstration as specified in this subpart must be conducted
within 150 days after the switch occurs.
(f) If you have a small control device for process vent or transfer
rack emissions that becomes a large control device, as defined in Sec.
63.2550(i), you must comply with monitoring and associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for large control devices
beginning on the date the switch occurs. An initial compliance
demonstration as specified in this subpart must be conducted within 150
days after the switch occurs.
0
4. Section 63.2450 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
c. Revising paragraph (h);
0
d. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text, paragraph (k)(3),
paragraph (k)(4) introductory text, and paragraph (k)(4)(i); and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (k)(4)(iv), (k)(5), and (k)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Requirements for control devices.
(1) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices (except a flare) or recovery devices,
you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(c) and the requirements
referenced therein.
(2) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a
flare, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(b) and the
requirements referenced therein.
(3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP emissions from halogenated vent streams, you must meet
the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the requirements referenced
therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a combustion
device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate prior to the
combustion device according to the procedures in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v).
(f) Requirements for flare compliance assessments.
(1) As part of a flare compliance assessment required in Sec.
63.987(b), you have the option of demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) by complying with the requirements in
either Sec. 63.11(b)(6)(i) or Sec. 63.987(b)(3)(ii).
(2) If you elect to meet the requirements in Sec. 63.11(b)(6)(i),
you must keep flare compliance assessment records as specified in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Keep records as specified in Sec. 63.998(a)(1)(i), except that
a record of the heat content determination is not required.
(ii) Keep records of the flare diameter, hydrogen content, exit
velocity, and maximum permitted velocity. Include these records in the
flare compliance report required in Sec. 63.999(a)(2).
* * * * *
(h) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a
small control device that is used to comply with an emission limit
specified in Table 1, 2, 3, or 5 to this subpart, you may elect to
conduct a design evaluation as specified in Sec. 63.1257(a)(1) instead
of a performance test as specified in subpart SS of this part 63. You
must establish the value(s) and basis for the operating limits as part
of the design evaluation. For continuous process vents, the design
evaluation must be conducted at maximum representative operating
conditions for the process, unless the Administrator specifies or
approves alternate operating conditions. For transfer racks, the design
evaluation must demonstrate that the control device achieves the
required control efficiency during the reasonably expected maximum
transfer loading rate.
* * * * *
(k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (6) of this section apply in addition to the
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring
[[Page 40333]]
system (CPMS) in subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
(3) As an alternative to continuously measuring and recording pH as
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), you
may elect to continuously monitor and record the caustic strength of
the effluent. For halogen scrubbers used to control only batch process
vents you may elect to monitor and record either the pH or the caustic
strength of the scrubber effluent at least once per day.
(4) As an alternative to the inlet and outlet temperature
monitoring requirements for catalytic incinerators as specified in
Sec. 63.988(c)(2) and the related recordkeeping requirements specified
in Sec. 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (c)(2)(ii), you may elect to comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (iv) of
this section.
(i) Monitor and record the inlet temperature as specified in
subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
(iv) Recording the downstream temperature and temperature
difference across the catalyst bed as specified in Sec.
63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (b)(2)(ii) is not required.
(5) For absorbers that control organic compounds and use water as
the scrubbing fluid, you must conduct monitoring and recordkeeping as
specified in paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section instead
of the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.990(c)(1), 63.993(c)(1), and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(C).
(i) You must use a flow meter capable of providing a continuous
record of the absorber influent liquid flow.
(ii) You must determine gas stream flow using one of the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D).
(iii) You must record the absorber liquid-to-gas ratio averaged
over the time period of any performance test.
(6) For a control device with total inlet HAP emissions less than 1
tpy, you must establish an operating limit(s) for a parameter(s) that
you will measure and record at least once per averaging period (i.e.,
daily or block) to verify that the control device is operating
properly. You may elect to measure the same parameter(s) that is
required for control devices that control inlet HAP emissions equal to
or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter will not be measured
continuously, you must request approval of your proposed procedure in
the precompliance report. You must identify the operating limit(s) and
the measurement frequency, and you must provide rationale to support
how these measurements demonstrate the control device is operating
properly.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.2460 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5) and revising
``paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii)'' to read ``paragraph (b)(5)(i),
(ii), or (iii)'' in redesignated paragraph (b)(5) introductory text;
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(7);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text, paragraph (c)(1),
paragraph (c)(2)(iii), and the first sentence in paragraph (c)(2)(v);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5), and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?
* * * * *
(b) Group status. If a process has batch process vents, as defined
in Sec. 63.2550, you must determine the group status of the batch
process vents by determining and summing the uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from each of the batch process vents within the process using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), except as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel
without a process condenser to a temperature lower than the boiling
point, you must use the procedures in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a vessel
without a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems for the purposes of
this subpart, the receiving vessel is part of the vacuum system, and
terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined
as follows:
Psystem = absolute pressure of the receiving vessel;
Pi = partial pressure of the HAP determined at the exit
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver;
Pj = partial pressure of condensables (including HAP)
determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the
condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver;
MWHAP = molecular weight of the HAP determined at the exit
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
(4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped
with a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
(i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume of gas),
partial pressures of condensables, temperature (T), and HAP molecular
weight (MWHAP) at the exit temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated
receiver.
(ii) You must assume that all of the components contained in the
condenser exit vent stream are in equilibrium with the same components
in the exit condensate stream (except for noncondensables).
(iii) You must perform a material balance for each component.
(iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term for time, t,
must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
(v) Emissions from empty vessel purging shall be calculated using
Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG and the exit temperature and
exit pressure conditions of the condenser or the conditions of the
dedicated receiver.
(vi) You must conduct an engineering assessment as specified in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) for each emission episode that is not due to
vapor displacement, purging, heating, depressurization, vacuum
operations, gas evolution, air drying, or empty vessel purging. The
requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) through (4) of this section shall
apply.
(vii) You may elect to conduct an engineering assessment if you can
demonstrate to the Administrator that the methods in Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) are not appropriate.
* * * * *
(6) You may change from Group 2 to Group 1 in accordance with
either paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section. You must comply
with the requirements of this section and submit the test report in the
next Compliance report.
(i) You may switch at any time after operating as Group 2 for at
least 1 year so that you can show compliance with the 10,000 pounds per
year (lb/yr) threshold for Group 2 batch process vents for at least 365
days before the switch. You may elect to start keeping records of
emissions from Group 2 batch process vents before the compliance date.
Report a switch based on this
[[Page 40334]]
provision in your next compliance report in accordance with Sec.
63.2520(e)(10)(i).
(ii) If the conditions in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section are
not applicable, you must provide a 60-day advance notice in accordance
with Sec. 63.2520(e)(10)(ii) before switching.
(7) As an alternative to determining the uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions as specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), you may
elect to demonstrate that non-reactive organic HAP are the only HAP
used in the process and non-reactive HAP usage in the process is less
than 10,000 lb/yr. You must provide data and supporting rationale in
your notification of compliance status report explaining why the non-
reactive organic HAP usage will be less than 10,000 lb/yr. You must
keep records of the non-reactive organic HAP usage as specified in
Sec. 63.2525(e)(2) and include information in compliance reports as
specified in Sec. 63.2520(e)(5)(iv).
(c) Exceptions to the requirements in subparts SS and WW of this
part 63 are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section.
(1) Process condensers. Process condensers, as defined in Sec.
63.2550(i), are not considered to be control devices for batch process
vents. You must determine whether a condenser is a control device for a
batch process vent or a process condenser from which the uncontrolled
HAP emissions are evaluated as part of the initial compliance
demonstration for each MCPU and report the results with supporting
rationale in your notification of compliance status report.
(2) * * *
(iii) As an alternative to conducting a performance test or design
evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
requirement for a condenser, you may determine controlled emissions
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) and
paragraphs (b)(3) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) If a process condenser is used for any boiling operations, you
must demonstrate that it is properly operated according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and
(d)(3)(iii)(B), and the demonstration must occur only during the
boiling operation. * * *
* * * * *
(8) Terminology. When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in
subpart WW of this part 63, the term ``process tank,'' as defined in
Sec. 63.2550(i), applies for the purposes of this section.
(9) Requirements for a biofilter. If you use a biofilter to meet
either the 95 percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration
requirement specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Operational requirements. The biofilter must be operated at all
times when emissions are vented to it.
(ii) Performance tests. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must
conduct a performance test according to the procedures in Sec. 63.997
and paragraphs (c)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. The design
evaluation option for small control devices is not applicable if you
use a biofilter.
(A) Keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of
either the biofilter bed temperature averaged over the full period of
the performance test or the outlet total organic HAP or TOC
concentration averaged over the full period of the performance test.
Include these data in your notification of compliance status report as
required by Sec. 63.999(b)(3)(ii).
(B) Record either the percent reduction of total organic HAP
achieved by the biofilter determined as specified in Sec.
63.997(e)(2)(iv) or the concentration of TOC or total organic HAP
determined as specified in Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii) at the outlet of the
biofilter, as applicable.
(C) If you monitor the biofilter bed temperature, you may elect to
use multiple thermocouples in representative locations throughout the
biofilter bed and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature
across these thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15
minute (or shorter) averages for purposes of establishing operating
limits for the biofilter. If you use multiple thermocouples, include
your rationale for their site selection in your notification of
compliance status report.
(D) Submit a performance test report as specified in Sec.
63.999(a)(2)(i) and (ii). Include the records from paragraph
(c)(9)(ii)(B) of this section in your performance test report.
(iii) Monitoring requirements. Use either a biofilter bed
temperature monitoring device (or multiple devices) capable of
providing a continuous record or an organic monitoring device capable
of providing a continuous record. Keep records of temperature or other
parameter monitoring results as specified in Sec. 63.998(b) and (c),
as applicable. General requirements for monitoring are contained in
Sec. 63.996. If you monitor temperature, the operating temperature
range must be based on only the temperatures measured during the
performance test; these data may not be supplemented by engineering
assessments or manufacturer's recommendations as otherwise allowed in
Sec. 63.999(b)(3)(ii)(A). If you establish the operating range
(minimum and maximum temperatures) using data from previous performance
tests in accordance with Sec. 63.996(c)(6), replacement of the
biofilter media with the same type of media is not considered a process
change under Sec. 63.997(b)(1). You may expand your biofilter bed
temperature operating range by conducting a repeat performance test
that demonstrates compliance with the 95 percent reduction requirement
or outlet concentration limit, as applicable.
(iv) Repeat performance tests. You must conduct a repeat
performance test using the applicable methods specified in Sec. 63.997
within 2 years following the previous performance test and within 150
days after each replacement of any portion of the biofilter bed media
with a different type of media or each replacement of more than 50
percent (by volume) of the biofilter bed media with the same type of
media.
0
6. Section 63.2465 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (b), and paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2465 What requirements must I meet for process vents that
emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or HAP metals?
* * * * *
(b) If any process vents within a process emit hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP, you must determine and sum the uncontrolled hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP emissions from each of the process vents within
the process using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)
and/or (ii), as appropriate. When Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) requires
documentation to be submitted in the precompliance report, it means the
notification of compliance status report for the purposes of this
paragraph.
* * * * *
(d) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit in Table 3 to
this subpart for HAP metals at a new source, you must comply with
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Determine the mass emission rate of HAP metals based on process
knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data.
(2) Conduct an initial performance test of each control device that
is used to comply with the emission limit for HAP metals specified in
Table 3 to this subpart. Conduct the performance test according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.997. Use Method 29 of appendix A of 40 CFR part
60 to determine the HAP metals at the inlet and outlet of each control
[[Page 40335]]
device, or use Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
the total particulate matter (PM) at the inlet and outlet of each
control device. You have demonstrated initial compliance if the overall
reduction of either HAP metals or total PM from the process is greater
than or equal to 97 percent by weight.
(3) Comply with the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.
63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter used to control HAP metals.
0
7. Section 63.2470 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) To comply with Sec. 63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of
an offsite cleaning or reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.
63.2445 through 63.2550 instead of complying with Sec.
63.1253(f)(7)(ii), except as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii)
of this section.
(i) The reporting requirements in Sec. 63.2520 do not apply to the
owner or operator of the offsite cleaning or reloading facility.
(ii) As an alternative to complying with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.2445 through
63.2550, the owner or operator of an offsite cleaning or reloading
facility may comply as specified in Sec. 63.2535(a)(2) with any other
subpart of this part 63 which has monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions as specified in Sec. 63.2535(a)(2).
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2475 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
0
9. Section 63.2480 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?
(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section.
(b) If you comply with either subpart H or subpart UU of this part
63, you may elect to comply with the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section as an alternative to the referenced
provisions in subpart H or subpart UU of this part.
(1) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec. 63.179(b) or
Sec. 63.1036(b) may be applied to all processes, not just batch
processes.
(2) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in
accordance with Sec. 63.179(b) or Sec. 63.1036(b) is not required
after reconfiguration of an equipment train if flexible hose
connections are the only disturbed equipment.
(3) For an existing source, you are not required to develop an
initial list of identification numbers for connectors as would
otherwise be required under Sec. 63.1022(b)(1) or Sec.
63.181(b)(1)(i).
(4) For connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service at an
existing source, you may elect to comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.169 or Sec. 63.1029 for connectors in heavy liquid service,
including all associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
rather than the requirements of Sec. 63.174 or Sec. 63.1027.
(5) For pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no
continuous process vents and is part of an existing source, you may
elect to consider the leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000
parts per million (ppm) or greater as an alternative to the values
specified in Sec. 63.1026(b)(2)(i) through (iii) or Sec.
63.163(b)(2).
(c) If you comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, you may elect to
comply with the provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this
section as an alternative to the referenced provisions in 40 CFR part
65, subpart F.
(1) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec. 65.117(b) may be
applied to all processes, not just batch processes.
(2) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in
accordance with Sec. 65.117(b) is not required after reconfiguration
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only
disturbed equipment.
(3) For an existing source, you are not required to develop an
initial list of identification numbers for connectors as would
otherwise be required under Sec. 65.103(b)(1).
(4) You may elect to comply with the monitoring and repair
requirements specified in Sec. 65.108(e)(3) as an alternative to the
requirements specified in Sec. 65.108(a) through (d) for any
connectors at your affected source.
(5) For pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no
continuous process vents and is part of an existing source, you may
elect to consider the leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000
ppm or greater as an alternative to the values specified in Sec.
65.107(b)(2)(i) through (iii).
(6) When 40 CFR part 65, subpart F refers to the implementation
date specified in Sec. 65.1(f), it means the compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.2445.
(7) When Sec. Sec. 65.105(f) and 65.117(d)(3) refer to Sec. 65.4,
it means Sec. 63.2525.
(8) When Sec. 65.120(a) refers to Sec. 65.5(d), it means Sec.
63.2515.
(9) When Sec. 65.120(b) refers to Sec. 65.5(e), it means Sec.
63.2520.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to bench-scale
processes, regardless of whether the processes are located at the same
plant site as a process subject to the provisions of this subpart.
0
10. Section 63.2485 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) and by adding new paragraphs (m), (n), and (o) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.2485 What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?
(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to your wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems
within an MCPU, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (o) of
this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8
to this subpart is greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any
flowrate, and the total annual load of compounds in Table 8 to this
subpart is greater than or equal to 200 lb/yr.
(2) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8
to this subpart is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual
average flowrate is greater than or equal to 1 l/min.
(3) The combined total annual average concentration of compounds in
Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to 30,000 ppmw,
and the combined total annual load of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to
this subpart is greater than or equal to 1 tpy.
* * * * *
(m) When Sec. 63.132(f) refers to ``a concentration of greater
than 10,000 ppmw of Table 9 compounds,'' the phrase ``a concentration
of greater than 30,000 ppmw of total partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) and
soluble HAP (SHAP) or greater than 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP'' shall apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(n) Alternative requirements for wastewater that is Group 1 for
soluble HAP only. The option specified in this paragraph (n) applies to
wastewater that is Group 1 for soluble HAP in accordance with paragraph
(c)(3) of this section and is discharged to biological treatment.
Except as provided in paragraph (n)(4) of this section, this option
does not apply to wastewater
[[Page 40336]]
that is Group 1 for partially soluble HAP in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this section. For wastewater that is Group
1 for SHAP, you need not comply with Sec. Sec. 63.133 through 63.137
for any equalization unit, neutralization unit, and/or clarifier prior
to the activated sludge unit, and you need not comply with the venting
requirements in Sec. 63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A) for lift stations with a
volume larger than 10,000 gal, provided you comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (3) of this section
and all otherwise applicable requirements specified in Table 7 to this
subpart. For this option, the treatment requirements in Sec. 63.138
and the performance testing requirements in Sec. 63.145 do not apply
to the biological treatment unit, except as specified in paragraphs
(n)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(1) Wastewater must be hard-piped between the equalization unit,
clarifier, and activated sludge unit. This requirement does not apply
to the transfer between any of these types of units that are part of
the same structure and one unit overflows into the next.
(2) Calculate the destruction efficiency of the biological
treatment unit using Equation 1 of this section in accordance with the
procedures described in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (vi) of this
section. You have demonstrated initial compliance if E is greater than
or equal to 90 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JY06.031
Where:
E = destruction efficiency of total PSHAP and SHAP for the biological
treatment unit including the equalization unit, neutralization unit,
and/or clarifier, percent;
QMWa = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds
entering the equalization unit (or whichever of the three types of
units is first), kilograms per hour (kg/hr);
QMGe = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds
emitted from the equalization unit, kg/hr;
QMGn = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds
emitted from the neutralization unit, kg/hr;
QMGc = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds
emitted from the clarifier, kg/hr
Fbio = site-specific fraction of PSHAP and SHAP compounds
biodegraded in the biological treatment unit.
(i) Include all PSHAP and SHAP compounds in both Group 1 and Group
2 wastewater streams from all MCPU, except you may exclude any
compounds that meet the criteria specified in Sec. 63.145(a)(6)(ii) or
(iii).
(ii) Conduct the demonstration under representative process unit
and treatment unit operating conditions in accordance with Sec.
63.145(a)(3) and (4).
(iii) Determine PSHAP and SHAP concentrations and the total
wastewater flow rate at the inlet to the equalization unit in
accordance with Sec. 63.145(f)(1) and (2). References in Sec.
63.145(f)(1) and (2) to required mass removal and actual mass removal
do not apply for the purposes of this section.
(iv) Determine Fbio for the activated sludge unit as
specified in Sec. 63.145(h), except as specified in paragraph
(n)(2)(iv)(A) or paragraph (n)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(A) If the biological treatment process meets both of the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.145(h)(1)(i) and (ii), you may elect
to replace the Fbio term in Equation 1 of this section with
the numeral ``1.''
(B) You may elect to assume fbio is zero for any
compounds on List 2 of Table 36 in subpart G.
(v) Determine QMGe, QMGn, and QMGc
using EPA's WATER9 model or the most recent update to this model, and
conduct testing or use other procedures to validate the modeling
results.
(vi) Submit the data and results of your demonstration, including
both a description of and the results of your WATER9 modeling
validation procedures, in your notification of compliance status report
as specified in Sec. 63.2520(d)(2)(ii).
(3) As an alternative to the venting requirements in Sec.
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A), a lift station with a volume larger than 10,000
gal may have openings necessary for proper venting of the lift station.
The size and other design characteristics of these openings may be
established based on manufacturer recommendations or engineering
judgment for venting under normal operating conditions. You must
describe the design of such openings and your supporting calculations
and other rationale in your notification of compliance status report.
(4) For any wastewater streams that are Group 1 for both PSHAP and
SHAP, you may elect to meet the requirements specified in Table 7 to
this subpart for the PSHAP and then comply with paragraphs (n)(1)
through (3) of this section for the SHAP in the wastewater system. You
may determine the SHAP mass removal rate, in kg/hr, in treatment units
that are used to meet the requirements for PSHAP and add this amount to
both the numerator and denominator in Equation 1 of this section.
(o) Compliance records. For each CPMS used to monitor a nonflare
control device for wastewater emissions, you must keep records as
specified in Sec. 63.998(c)(1) in addition to the records required in
Sec. 63.147(d).
0
11. Section 63.2495 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) You must comply with the emission limitations and work practice
standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 of this subpart for all HAP
that are generated in the MCPU and that are not included in
consumption, as defined in Sec. 63.2550. If any vent stream routed to
the combustion control is a halogenated vent stream, as defined in
Sec. 63.2550, then hydrogen halides that are generated as a result of
combustion control must be controlled according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.994 and the requirements referenced therein.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.2520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ix);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(5) introductory text, (e)(5)(ii)(C), and
(e)(5)(iii)(K) and adding new paragraph (e)(5)(iv);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(9); and
0
e. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (e)(10)(i) and
paragraph (e)(10)(ii)(C) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to
calculate uncontrolled emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(ii). This requirement does not apply to
[[Page 40337]]
calculations of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions as specified
in Sec. 63.2465(b), to determinations that the total HAP concentration
is less than 50 ppmv, or if you use previous test data to establish the
uncontrolled emissions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP usage or
HAP emissions from the affected source.
* * * * *
(ix) Records as specified in Sec. 63.2535(l)(1) through (3) of
process units used to create a PUG and calculations of the initial
primary product of the PUG.
(e) * * *
(5) The compliance report must contain the information on
deviations, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, according to paragraphs
(e)(5)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Operating logs of processes with batch vents from batch
operations for the day(s) during which the deviation occurred, except
operating logs are not required for deviations of the work practice
standards for equipment leaks.
(iii) * * *
(K) Operating logs of processes with batch vents from batch
operations for each day(s) during which the deviation occurred.
* * * * *
(iv) If you documented in your notification of compliance status
report that an MCPU has Group 2 batch process vents because the non-
reactive HAP is the only HAP and usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr, the
total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the batch process vents
in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/yr for the anticipated number of
standard batches, or total uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions from all batch process vents and continuous process vents in
a process are less than 1,000 lb/yr, include the records associated
with each calculation required by Sec. 63.2525(e) that exceeds an
applicable HAP usage or emissions threshold.
* * * * *
(9) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as
specified in referenced subparts F, G, H, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this
part and subpart F of 40 CFR part 65.
(10) * * *
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(10)(ii) of this section,
whenever you make a process change, or change any of the information
submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a previous
compliance report, that is not within the scope of an existing
operating scenario, you must document the change in your compliance
report. A process change does not include moving within a range of
conditions identified in the standard batch, and a nonstandard batch
does not constitute a process change. * * *
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) A change from Group 2 to Group 1 for any emission point except
for batch process vents that meet the conditions specified in Sec.
63.2460(b)(6)(i).
0
13. Section 63.2525 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (e)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2525 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63
and in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this part 63
and in referenced subpart F of 40 CFR part 65.
* * * * *
(c) A schedule or log of operating scenarios for processes with
batch vents from batch operations updated each time a different
operating scenario is put into effect.
* * * * *
(e) The information specified in paragraph (e)(2), (3), or (4) of
this section, as applicable, for each process with Group 2 batch
process vents or uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions
from the sum of all batch and continuous process vents less than 1,000
lb/yr. No records are required for situations described in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(1) No records are required if you documented in your notification
of compliance status report that the MCPU meets any of the situations
described in paragraph (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) The MCPU does not process, use, or generate HAP.
(ii) You control the Group 2 batch process vents using a flare that
meets the requirements of Sec. 63.987.
(iii) You control the Group 2 batch process vents using a control
device for which your determination of worst case for initial
compliance includes the contribution of all Group 2 batch process
vents.
(2) If you documented in your notification of compliance status
report that an MCPU has Group 2 batch process vents because the non-
reactive organic HAP is the only HAP and usage is less than 10,000 lb/
yr, as specified in Sec. 63.2460(b)(7), you must keep records of the
amount of HAP material used, and calculate the daily rolling annual sum
of the amount used no less frequently than monthly. If a record
indicates usage exceeds 10,000 lb/yr, you must estimate emissions for
the preceding 12 months based on the number of batches operated and the
estimated emissions for a standard batch, and you must begin
recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. After 1
year, you may revert to recording only usage if the usage during the
year is less than 10,000 lb.
(3) If you documented in your notification of compliance status
report that total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the batch
process vents in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/yr for the
anticipated number of standard batches, then you must keep records of
the number of batches operated and calculate a daily rolling annual sum
of batches operated no less frequently than monthly. If the number of
batches operated results in organic HAP emissions that exceed 1,000 lb/
yr, you must estimate emissions for the preceding 12 months based on
the number of batches operated and the estimated emissions for a
standard batch, and you must begin recordkeeping as specified in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section. After 1 year, you may revert to
recording only the number of batches if the number of batches operated
during the year results in less than 1,000 lb of organic HAP emissions.
(4) If you meet none of the conditions specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (3) of this section, you must keep records of the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A record of the day each batch was completed and/or the
operating hours per day for continuous operations with hydrogen halide
and halogen emissions.
(ii) A record of whether each batch operated was considered a
standard batch.
(iii) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
(iv) Records of the daily 365-day rolling summations of emissions,
or alternative records that correlate to the emissions (e.g., number of
batches), calculated no less frequently than monthly.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.2535 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (k) to
read as follows:
[[Page 40338]]
Sec. 63.2535 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
* * * * *
(a) Compliance with other subparts of this part 63. (1) If you have
an MCPU that includes a batch process vent that also is part of a CMPU
as defined in subparts F and G of this part 63, you must comply with
the emission limits; operating limits; work practice standards; and the
compliance, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for
batch process vents in this subpart, and you must continue to comply
with the requirements in subparts F, G, and H of this part 63 that are
applicable to the CMPU and associated equipment.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, at an
offsite reloading or cleaning facility subject to Sec. 63.1253(f), as
referenced from Sec. 63.2470(e), compliance with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of any other subpart of this
part 63 constitutes compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of Sec. 63.1253(f)(7)(ii) or Sec.
63.1253(f)(7)(iii). You must identify in your notification of
compliance status report required by Sec. 63.2520(d) the subpart of
this part 63 with which the owner or operator of the offsite reloading
or cleaning facility complies.
* * * * *
(k) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V. After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such equipment. After the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an affected
source with equipment to which this subpart does not apply, but which
is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such
equipment. If you elect either of these methods of compliance, you must
consider all total organic compounds, minus methane and ethane, in such
equipment for purposes of compliance with this subpart, as if they were
organic HAP. Compliance with the provisions of this subpart, in the
manner described in this paragraph (k), will constitute compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, as
applicable.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.2550 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (i) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (8) in the definition of the term ``batch process
vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (6) and (7) to the definition of the term
``continuous process vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
e. Revising the definition of the term ``Group 1 continuous process
vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
f. Revising the definition of the term ``isolated intermediate'' in
paragraph (i);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (6) to the definition of the term
``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process'' in paragraph
(i);
0
h. Revising the definition of the term ``recovery device'' in paragraph
(i);
0
i. Revising the definition of the term ``surge control vessel'' in
paragraph (i);
0
j. Revising the introductory text of the definition of the term
``wastewater'' in paragraph (i); and
0
k. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for the terms
``biofilter,'' ``continuous operation,'' ``emission point,'' ``halogen
atoms,'' ``HAP metals,'' ``point of determination,'' and ``process
condenser'' in paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 40
CFR part 65, subpart F, the terms used in this subpart and in 40 CFR
part 65, subpart F have the meaning given to them in Sec. 65.2.
* * * * *
(i) * * * If a term is defined in Sec. 63.2, Sec. 63.101, Sec.
63.111, Sec. 63.981, Sec. 63.1020, Sec. 63.1061, Sec. 63.1251, or
Sec. 65.2 and in this paragraph (i), the definition in this paragraph
(i) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
Batch process vent * * *
(8) Emission streams from emission episodes that are undiluted and
uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP are not part of any batch
process vent. A vent from a unit operation, or a vent from multiple
unit operations that are manifolded together, from which total
uncontrolled HAP emissions are less than 200 lb/yr is not a batch
process vent; emissions for all emission episodes associated with the
unit operation(s) must be included in the determination of the total
mass emitted. The HAP concentration or mass emission rate may be
determined using any of the following: process knowledge that no HAP
are present in the emission stream; an engineering assessment as
discussed in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), except that you do not need to
demonstrate that the equations in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i) do not apply,
and the precompliance reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for the purposes of this
demonstration; equations specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i), as
applicable; test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; or
any other test method that has been validated according to the
procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
* * * * *
Biofilter means an enclosed control system such as a tank or series
of tanks with a fixed roof that contact emissions with a solid media
(such as bark) and use microbiological activity to transform organic
pollutants in a process vent stream to innocuous compounds such as
carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts. Wastewater treatment
processes such as aeration lagoons or activated sludge systems are not
considered to be biofilters.
* * * * *
Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch
operation.
Continuous process vent * * *
(6) The references to an ``air oxidation reactor, distillation
unit, or reactor'' in Sec. 63.107 mean any continuous operation for
the purposes of this subpart.
(7) A separate determination is required for the emissions from
each MCPU, even if emission streams from two or more MCPU are combined
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or to a control device.
* * * * *
Emission point means each continuous process vent, batch process
vent, storage tank, transfer rack, and wastewater stream.
* * * * *
Group 1 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for
which the flow rate is greater than or equal to 0.005 standard cubic
meter per minute, and the total resource effectiveness index value,
calculated according to Sec. 63.2455(b), is less than or equal to 1.9
at an existing source and less than or equal to 5.0 at a new source.
* * * * *
Halogen atoms mean chlorine and fluorine.
HAP metals means the metal portion of antimony compounds, arsenic
compounds, beryllium compounds, cadmium compounds, chromium compounds,
cobalt compounds, lead compounds, manganese compounds, mercury
compounds, nickel compounds, and selenium compounds.
* * * * *
[[Page 40339]]
Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a
product of a chemical synthesis, fermentation, or biological extraction
process. Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a
process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is placed in
equipment used solely for storage. The storage equipment is part of the
MCPU that produces the isolated intermediate and is not assigned as
specified in Sec. 63.2435(d).
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process * * *
(6) The end of a process that produces a solid material is either
up to and including the dryer or extruder, or for a polymer production
process without a dryer or extruder, it is up to and including the
extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor, except in two cases. If
the dryer, extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor is followed by
an operation that is designed and operated to remove HAP solvent or
residual HAP monomer from the solid, then the solvent removal operation
is the last step in the process. If the dried solid is diluted or mixed
with a HAP-based solvent, then the solvent removal operation is the
last step in the process.
* * * * *
Point of determination means each point where process wastewater
exits the MCPU or control device.
Note to definition for point of determination: The regulation
allows determination of the characteristics of a wastewater stream: At
the point of determination; or downstream of the point of determination
if corrections are made for changes in flow rate and annual average
concentration of soluble HAP and partially soluble HAP compounds as
determined according to procedures in Sec. 63.144 of subpart G in this
part 63. Such changes include losses by air emissions; reduction of
annual average concentration or changes in flow rate by mixing with
other water or wastewater streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual
average concentration by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater
stream to remove or destroy HAP.
* * * * *
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of an MCPU. All condensers
recovering condensate from an MCPU at or above the boiling point or all
condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered process
condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in series are
considered to be integral to the MCPU if they are capable of and
normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value
(i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel
value, use, or reuse. This definition does not apply to a condenser
that is used to remove materials that would hinder performance of a
downstream recovery device as follows:
(1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream
condenser, or
(2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the
adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber, or
(3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other
organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration
of a downstream carbon adsorber.
* * * * *
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment used for the
purpose of recovering chemicals from process vent streams and from
wastewater streams for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value),
use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. For the purposes
of meeting requirements in Table 2 to this subpart, the recovery device
must not be a process condenser and must recover chemicals to be reused
in a process on site. Examples of equipment that may be recovery
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a
recovery device for a wastewater stream, a decanter and any other
equipment based on the operating principle of gravity separation must
receive only multi-phase liquid streams.
* * * * *
Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and
intermediate vessels as part of any continuous operation. Surge control
vessels are used within an MCPU when in-process storage, mixing, or
management of flowrates or volumes is needed to introduce material into
continuous operations.
* * * * *
Wastewater means water that is discarded from an MCPU or control
device through a POD and that contains either: an annual average
concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart of at
least 5 ppmw and has an annual average flowrate of 0.02 liters per
minute or greater; or an annual average concentration of compounds in
Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate.
Wastewater means process wastewater or maintenance wastewater. The
following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this
subpart:
* * * * *
0
16. Table 2 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1
to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Batch Process Vents
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must . .
For each . . . Then you must . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with Group 1 batch a. Reduce collective Not applicable.
process vents. uncontrolled organic
HAP emissions from
the sum of all batch
process vents within
the process by >=98
percent by weight by
venting emissions
from a sufficient
number of the vents
through one or more
closed-vent systems
to any combination of
control devices
(except a flare); or
b. Reduce collective Not applicable.
uncontrolled organic
HAP emissions from
the sum of all batch
process vents within
the process by >=95
percent by weight by
venting emissions
from a sufficient
number of the vents
through one or more
closed-vent systems
to any combination of
recovery devices or a
biofilter, except you
may elect to comply
with the requirements
of subpart WW of this
part for any process
tank; or
[[Page 40340]]
c. Reduce uncontrolled For all other
organic HAP emissions batch process
from one or more vents within
batch process vents the process,
within the process by reduce
venting through a collective
closed-vent system to organic HAP
a flare or by venting emissions as
through one or more specified in
closed-vent systems item 1.a and/or
to any combination of item 1.b of
control devices this table.
(excluding a flare)
that reduce organic
HAP to an outlet
concentration <=20
ppmv as TOC or total
organic HAP.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 3 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Hydrogen Halide
and Halogen HAP Emissions or HAP Metals Emissions From Process Vents
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with uncontrolled hydrogen a. Reduce collective hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP emissions from halide and halogen HAP
process vents >=1,000 lb/yr. emissions by >=99 percent by
weight or to an outlet
concentration <=20 ppmv by
venting through one or more
closed-vent systems to any
combination of control
devices, or
b. Reduce the halogen atom mass
emission rate from the sum of
all batch process vents and
each individual continuous
process vent to <=0.45 kg/hr
by venting through one or more
closed-vent systems to a
halogen reduction device.
2. Process at a new source with Reduce overall emissions of HAP
uncontrolled emissions from process metals by >=97 percent by
vents >=150 lb/yr of HAP metals. weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
18. Table 4 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1
to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must .
For each . . . For which . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 storage tank....... a. The maximum true i. Reduce total
vapor pressure of HAP emissions
total HAP at the by >=95 percent
storage temperature by weight or to
is >=76.6 kilopascals. <=20 ppmv of
TOC or organic
HAP and <=20
ppmv of
hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP
by venting
emissions
through a
closed vent
system to any
combination of
control devices
(excluding a
flare); or
ii. Reduce total
organic HAP
emissions by
venting
emissions
through a
closed vent
system to a
flare; or
iii. Reduce
total HAP
emissions by
venting
emissions to a
fuel gas system
or process in
accordance with
Sec.
63.982(d) and
the
requirements
referenced
therein.
b. The maximum true i. Comply with
vapor pressure of the
total HAP at the requirements of
storage temperature subpart WW of
is <76.6 kilopascals. this part,
except as
specified in
Sec. 63.2470;
or
[[Page 40341]]
ii. Reduce total
HAP emissions
by >=95 percent
by weight or to
<=20 ppmv of
TOC or organic
HAP and <=20
ppmv of
hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP
by venting
emissions
through a
closed vent
system to any
combination of
control devices
(excluding a
flare); or
iii. Reduce
total organic
HAP emissions
by venting
emissions
through a
closed vent
system to a
flare; or
iv. Reduce total
HAP emissions
by venting
emissions to a
fuel gas system
or process in
accordance with
Sec.
63.982(d) and
the
requirements
referenced
therein.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
19. Table 5 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1
to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Transfer Racks
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer rack.......... a. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by >=98 percent by weight or to
an outlet concentration <=20 ppmv
as organic HAP or TOC by venting
emissions through a closed-vent
system to any combination of
control devices (except a flare);
or
b. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a flare; or
c. Reduce emissions of total organic
HAP by venting emissions to a fuel
gas system or process in accordance
with Sec. 63.982(d) and the
requirements referenced therein; or
d. Use a vapor balancing system
designed and operated to collect
organic HAP vapors displaced from
tank trucks and railcars during
loading and route the collected HAP
vapors to the storage tank from
which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage
tank connected by a common header.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1
to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic a. Comply with the requirements of
HAP service. subpart UU of this part 63 and the
requirements referenced therein,
except as specified in Sec.
63.2480(b) and (d); or
b. Comply with the requirements of
subpart H of this part 63 and the
requirements referenced therein,
except as specified in Sec.
63.2480(b) and (d); or
c. Comply with the requirements of
40 CFR part 65, subpart F and the
requirements referenced therein,
except as specified in Sec.
63.2480(c) and (d).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
21. Table 8 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by removing entry 10
and redesignating entries 11 through 61 as entries 10 through 60.
0
22. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended as follows:
[[Page 40342]]
0
a. Removing the entries for Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii) and
63.10(e)(1)-(2);
0
b. Adding new entries for Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i), 63.8(c)(4)(ii),
63.10(e)(1), 63.10(e)(2)(i), and 63.10(e)(2)(ii); and
0
c. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(4), 63.8(c)(6),
63.8(c)(7)-(8), 63.8(d), 63.8(e), 63.9(g), 63.10(b)(2)(xiii), and
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15).
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFF
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)............. CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS.
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
continuous opacity
monitoring systems
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i).......... COMS Measurement No; subpart FFFF does
and Recording not require COMS.
Frequency.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii)......... CEMS Measurement Yes.
and Recording
Frequency.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)............. CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS;
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)......... CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS.
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)................ CMS Quality Only for CEMS.
Control.
Sec. 63.8(e)................ CMS Performance Only for CEMS.
Evaluation. Section
63.8(e)(5)(ii) does
not apply because
subpart FFFF does
not require COMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(g)................ Additional Only for CEMS.
Notifications Section 63.9(g)(2)
When Using CMS. does not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...... Records.......... Only for CEMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)- Records.......... Only for CEMS.
(15). Recordkeeping
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)............ Additional CEMS Yes.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(i)......... Additional CMS Only for CEMS.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)........ Additional COMS No. Subpart FFFF does
Reports. not require COMS.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-5970 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P