[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 208 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56008-56056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25576]
[[Page 56007]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 56008]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334; FRL-8972-6]
RIN 2060-AM19
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for the control of
hazardous air pollutants for nine area source categories in the
chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides
Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical
Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing,
Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The
standards and associated requirements for the nine area source
categories are combined in one subpart. This final rule establishes
emission standards in the form of management practices for each
chemical manufacturing process unit as well as emission limits for
certain subcategories of process vents and storage tanks. The rule also
establishes management practices and other emission reduction
requirements for subcategories of wastewater systems and heat exchange
systems.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:
(919) 541-5402; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for this Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Emission Standards
C. Initial Compliance
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
F. Title V
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards
D. Initial Compliance Requirements
E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
F. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards
D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations
E. Monitoring Requirements
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction (SSM)
H. Title V Permitting
VI. Impacts of Final Area Source Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VII. 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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action are shown in the table below. This final rule applies to each
chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) that uses as feedstocks,\1\
generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of the following
15 hazardous air pollutants (HAP): 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene;
acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene dichloride; methylene chloride;
hexachlorobenzene; hydrazine; quinoline (i.e., ``chemical manufacturing
organic urban HAP'' or ``Table 1\2\ organic HAP''); or compounds of
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel (i.e.,
``chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 metal HAP'').
Consistent with the proposed rule, the standards do not apply to
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and
hydrogen fluoride) at affected sources, except when these HAP are
generated in combustion-based emission control devices that are used to
meet the proposed standards for organic HAP on Table 1.\3\ The affected
source for this rule is the facility-wide collection of CMPUs that use,
generate, or produce one or more of the Table 1 HAP and the wastewater
systems and heat exchange systems associated with the CMPUs that use
Table 1 HAP. A CMPU includes all process equipment and activities
involved in the production of a material described by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325.\4\ If a CMPU uses,
generates, or
[[Page 56009]]
produces one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP listed
above, then the standards apply to all listed Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from that CMPU. Similarly, if a CMPU
uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical manufacturing metal
urban HAP listed above, then the standards apply to all listed CAA
section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from that CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives
to the process.
\2\ ``Table 1'' refers to Table 1 in the final rule.
\3\ Collectively, the Table 1 organic and metal HAP are referred
to as the ``chemical manufacturing urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 HAP.''
\4\ The CMPU is defined by a facility's production of materials
described by NAICS code 325. A facility producing such a material
(or family of materials) may use more than one train or series of
equipment to make it. All equipment (i.e., unit operation) used to
produce a specific product (as well as all the vents and activities
associated with making this product) are considered to be part of a
single CMPU for purposes of this rule. For example, facility X makes
a pharmaceutical product that requires the use of methylene chloride
as a solvent. The product is produced in any of three different size
reactors, depending on the quantity needed or equipment
availability. All of the reactors; other process equipment (e.g.,
for separation, drying, etc.); connecting piping and related pumps,
valves, etc.; storage tanks; transfer operations; surge control
vessels; bottoms receivers; and other activities (e.g., routine
cleaning) are part of a single CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Industry category NAICS code\1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing......... 325 Chemical manufacturing
area sources that use
as feedstock, generate
as byproduct, or
produce as product,
any of the HAP subject
to this subpart except
for: (1) Processes
classified in NAICS
Code 325222, 325314,
or 325413; (2)
processes subject to
standards for other
listed area source
categories \2\ in
NAICS 325; (3) certain
fabricating
operations; (4)
manufacture of
photographic film,
paper, and plate where
material is coated or
contains chemicals
(but the manufacture
of the photographic
chemicals is
regulated); and (5)
manufacture of
radioactive elements
or isotopes, radium
chloride, radium
luminous compounds,
strontium, and
uranium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ The source categories in NAICS 325 for which other area source
standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production,
Chemical Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium
Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and
Allied Coatings, and Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing.
Area sources in NAICS 325 not specifically identified in the chart
above may also be affected by this action. To determine whether your
chemical manufacturing area source is regulated by this action, you
should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 of subpart
VVVVVV (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources). For additional information about
applicability provisions, see sections III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this
preamble. 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).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
December 28, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule 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 EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to 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 this 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 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 20460.
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major
and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA
section 112(c). A major source is any stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a
stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999) (Strategy). Specifically,
in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential
health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30
urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list
sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban
HAP are subject to regulation. We selected the nine chemical
manufacturing area source categories based on these requirements. A
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT)
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
[[Page 56010]]
* * * methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small
businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and
management practices on that category.
We are issuing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for nine
source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B) by October 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537,
D.D.C., March 2006).
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
In the proposed rule, we proposed that the affected source include
the entire facility if the facility emitted any of the chemical
manufacturing urban HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, all process
vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater systems, and
cooling towers at the facility would be subject to the standards if any
emissions source at the facility emitted one of the chemical
manufacturing urban HAP. In response to comments, we narrowed the scope
of applicability of this final rule, and we made several changes to
clarify the applicability provisions. The most significant change is
that only CMPU that emit one or more of the 15 chemical manufacturing
urban HAP and the wastewater systems and heat exchange systems
associated with those CMPUs are subject to the rule. A CMPU includes
all process equipment and activities involved in the production of a
material (or family of materials) described by NAICS code 325.
Additionally, a CMPU includes each surge control vessel, bottoms
receiver, pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the
production of a subject NAICS 325 material. The final rule provides
that a CMPU consists of one or more processing steps used in the
production of the subject NAICS 325 material.
The final rule further specifies that each CMPU within an affected
source that emits one of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP is
subject only to requirements that apply to the same type of HAP that
triggered applicability, not requirements for all types of HAP. For
example, a CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP
is required to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. Similarly, a
CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP is required
to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP. For the purposes of this
provision, hydrazine is considered to be an organic HAP.
In response to comments, we are clarifying that the rule does not
extend to structural items (e.g., piping) and items that exist as
``articles'' as defined in 40 CFR 372.3, and are used under normal
conditions, because these items do not emit any HAP, including the
chemical manufacturing urban HAP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Article'' means a manufactured item: ``(1) Which is formed
to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2) which has end
use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design
during end use; and (3) which does not release a toxic chemical
under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at the
facility or establishment.'' 40 CFR 372.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Emission Standards
1. Management Practices
EPA proposed management practices for a number of emission points,
including for process vents (batch, continuous, and metal HAP); storage
tanks; transfer operations; and equipment leaks. The proposed
management practices for process vents included covering all process
tanks and mixing vessels during operation; maintaining covers in the
closed position on all openings and access points in other process
vessels; conducting quarterly inspections to check for leaks from the
process vessels and determining the integrity of the process vessels
and ensuring covers are being used; and repairing leaks within 15 days.
EPA proposed these management practice requirements for all affected
sources. For storage tanks, EPA proposed GACT as management practices
consisting of quarterly inspections for leaks, minimizing and promptly
cleaning up spills, and ensuring all openings and access points are
closed for all storage tanks. For transfer operations, EPA proposed to
minimize emissions using management practices, such as minimizing
spills, cleaning up spills promptly, covering open containers when not
in use, and minimizing discharges to open waste collection systems.
In the final rule, the separate proposed management practices for
process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and equipment leaks
were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of
management practices that are applicable to each CMPU. The
comprehensive management practices in the final rule include
requirements to equip each process vessel with a cover or lid that must
be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP, except for
material addition and sampling. The management practices also include
sensory-based inspections of process vessels and equipment in each
CMPU. Changes to management practices specific to small heat exchange
systems are described in section III.B.2.f of this preamble.
2. Emission Limits and Emission Control Requirements
a. Continuous Process Vents and Batch Process Vents
For continuous process vents with a total resource effectiveness
(TRE) index of 1 or less, EPA proposed management practices and 95
percent emission reduction of organic HAP emissions. After
consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing management
practices and the 95 percent emission reduction requirement for organic
HAP emissions from continuous process vents. Based on public comments,
the final rule includes a definition of continuous process vent that is
based on the process vent definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F of
the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON). In addition, the final rule
includes a mass emission threshold of 0.1 pound per hour (lb/hr) or
less, below which the TRE index calculation is not required.
For facilities with batch process vents, EPA proposed management
practices and a 90 percent organic HAP emission
[[Page 56011]]
reduction if the collective uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions
from the sum of all batch process vents within the affected facility
was 19,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr) or greater. The final rule requires
management practices and 85 percent control (90 percent for new
sources) if the total organic uncontrolled HAP emissions from batch
process vents within a CMPU are 10,000 lbs/yr or greater. We
established the control efficiency of 85 percent as GACT for existing
area sources based on additional information provided by commenters.
Under the final rule, emissions from any batch process vents may be
estimated based on process knowledge, engineering assessment, and/or
test data. The proposed requirement to use the calculation methodology
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) for certain types of emission episodes is
not required, but it is authorized under the final rule. The final rule
also includes an expanded definition of batch process vent that
includes examples of batch process vents and lists types of equipment
and gas streams that are not batch process vents.
b. Metal HAP Process Vents
EPA proposed management practices and 95 percent metal HAP emission
reduction if the collective uncontrolled total metal HAP emissions from
the sum of all metal HAP process vents was greater than 400 lbs/yr on a
facility-wide basis. In addition to the 400 lbs/yr level, EPA co-
proposed a metal HAP threshold level of 100 lbs/yr on a facility-wide
basis, and asked for public comment on the appropriate threshold to use
for purposes of subcategorizing metal HAP process vents based on the
factors discussed in the proposed rule. For metal HAP process vents
with total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions less than the threshold,
management practices would be required to reduce HAP emissions. After
considering public comments, the final rule requires management
practices and 95 percent reduction in metal HAP emissions from each
CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP process vent emissions of 400 lbs/yr
or greater.
c. Storage Tanks
The proposed rule cross-referenced the thresholds for control, as
well as the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. The final rule replaces the references to subpart Kb with
references to the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part
63, subparts SS and WW and by directly specifying the applicable
thresholds for control in Table 5 to the final rule. The capacity and
maximum true vapor pressure thresholds for control in the final rule
are the same as at proposal, but the final rule specifies that the
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) threshold is to be based on the
organic HAP content of the stored liquid, not the volatile organic
liquid (VOL) content as specified in subpart Kb. As in other NESHAP, we
intended to require MTVP determinations based on the organic HAP
content in the stored liquid, but we inadvertently neglected to
override the reference to VOL in the MTVP definition in subpart Kb. The
standards and compliance procedures are essentially the same as at
proposal, but the final rule references standards and compliance
procedures in 40 CFR part 63 (Subparts SS and WW, and the General
Provisions, Subpart A). The final rule also includes a vapor balancing
compliance alternative that provides at least equivalent levels of HAP
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing.
Based on public comments, we have determined that GACT for storage
tanks that vent to a control device includes alternative procedures
during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device.
Therefore, the final rule specifies that no material may be added to
the storage tank during periods of planned routine maintenance, and
periods of planned routine maintenance may not exceed 240 hours per
year (hrs/yr).
Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers were included in the
proposed definition of storage tank because we proposed that these
types of vessels would be subject to the same standards as storage
tanks. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers remain subject to
the storage tank standards in the final rule. However, based on public
comments, we removed surge control vessels and bottoms receivers from
the definition of storage tank, and instead explicitly specify in
section 63.11496(h) of the final rule that the storage tank standards
apply to surge control vessels and bottoms receivers that meet the
applicability criteria for storage tanks set forth in Table 5 of the
final rule. All storage tanks that store liquid containing organic HAP
and are part of a CMPU subject to the final rule are subject to the
management practice requirements. In addition, the definition of
storage tank in the final rule is changed to make the definition
consistent with definitions in other NESHAP such as the Miscellaneous
Organic NESHAP (MON), HON, and Pharmaceutical maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards by excluding wastewater storage
tanks and tanks storing liquid containing organic HAP only as
impurities.
d. Wastewater
EPA proposed to subcategorize wastewater streams based on the size
of the wastewater stream and determined that large wastewater streams
were those with partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) concentrations of 10,000
parts per million by weight (ppmw) or greater. For wastewater streams
with PSHAP concentrations of less than 10,000 ppmw discharge, we
proposed as GACT to send the wastewater stream to an onsite or offsite
wastewater treatment process, and, for wastewater streams containing
PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater, we proposed as GACT use
of gravity separation or other techniques to separate organic and water
layers and to send the water layer to a wastewater treatment process.
We proposed that the organic layer must be recovered and reused in a
process, used as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
Based on comments, we are revising our subcategorization
determination to account for wastewater streams with PSHAP
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that do not have a separate
organic layer. The separation techniques that we established as GACT
for larger wastewater streams will not work for wastewater streams that
contain only a water phase. For this reason, we are also now
considering the type of stream in our subcategorization determination
to account for the wastewater streams that do not separate at PSHAP
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw. In the final rule, the larger wastewater
stream subcategory is defined as those wastewater streams with PSHAP
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that also have a separate
organic layer.
As stated above, the proposed GACT requirement for a wastewater
stream that contains PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater was
to separate the stream into the organic and aqueous phase and treat
them according to the requirements in the proposed standards. The final
rule retains these provisions for the newly defined large wastewater
systems subcategory and also provides an alternative compliance option
to hard-pipe the total stream to a combustion unit or other onsite
hazardous waste treatment facility (or to a tank from which it is
collected and shipped offsite). This alternative provides at least
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the emission control
requirements contained in this proposed rule. We are also finalizing
the proposed requirement
[[Page 56012]]
for single phase wastewater streams and the aqueous phase for two phase
streams that requires the wastewater streams be sent to a wastewater
treatment process.
Based on public comments, we also revised the definition of
wastewater stream to be consistent with MON and HON wastewater stream
definitions.
e. Transfer Operations
EPA proposed that management practices to minimize evaporation
losses and use of submerged loading were GACT for transfer operations.
After considering public comments on the transfer operations
requirements, we have replaced in some cases and revised in others the
management practices for transfer operations and are promulgating a
comprehensive management practice requirement (see discussion in
section III.B.1 of this preamble), which includes inspection of
transfer operations. In addition to the management practices, we have
determined that GACT for most material transfers is the use of
submerged loading or bottom loading. In response to public comments, we
have added an alternative compliance option to route emissions to a
fuel gas system or process in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS. This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of HAP
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing.
Based on public comments, we have also determined that submerged or
bottom loading is neither general industry practice nor GACT for the
transfer of reactive and resinous materials because sources do not
currently employ submerged or bottom loading for these materials due to
operational issues. Therefore, the final rule defines reactive and
resinous materials and requires sources to include in the initial
Notifications of Compliance Status a list of any materials that meet
these definitions. Source must also keep records of the use of these
materials and report in the semiannual compliance report the use of any
additional resinous or reactive materials occurring during the
reporting period. Reactive materials are defined in the final rule as
energetics, organic peroxides, and other unstable chemicals such as
chemicals that react violently with water and chemicals that vigorously
polymerize, decompose, condense, or become self-reactive under
conditions of pressure or temperature. Resinous materials are defined
in the final rule as viscous, high-boiling point material resembling
pitch or tar that sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe under normal
transfer conditions.
f. Heat Exchange Systems
The proposed rule used the term ``cooling tower'' systems; however,
we intended to regulate ``heat exchange'' systems as is consistent with
the HON. We also intended to include ``once-through'' systems as part
of the affected source. Therefore, the final rule uses the term ``heat
exchange system'' in place of the proposed term ``cooling tower
system.'' The final rule also includes a definition of ``heat exchange
system'' that is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 63.101 of the
HON and clearly specifies that once-through systems are included.
After considering public comments, we have retained the proposed
inspection and leak repair requirements for small heat exchange systems
and monitoring and leak repair requirements for large heat exchange
systems as the GACT requirements in the final rule. The proposed rule
also required compliance with 40 CFR 63.104(a), and several commenters
did not understand what that requirement meant. To address the
confusion caused by the proposed rule, we clarified in the final rule
that heat exchange systems meeting the conditions set forth in 40 CFR
63.104(a) are not subject to the inspection or monitoring requirements
contained in the final rule, as that is what we intended when we
proposed the rule.
As a compliance alternative to the requirement to perform repairs
after an inspection of a small heat exchange system reveals indications
of a potential leak into cooling water, the final rule also allows the
owner or operator to demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined in 40 CFR
63.104(b)(6). For both large and small heat exchange systems, the final
rule also allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system
requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c). For equipment that meets
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements in 21 CFR part
211, the physical integrity of the reactor may be used as the surrogate
indicator of heat exchange system leaks under 40 CFR 63.104(c). These
compliance alternatives provide at least equivalent levels of HAP
emission reductions as the emission control requirements contained in
this final rule.
g. Equipment Leaks
As discussed in section III.B.1 of this preamble, the proposed
equipment leak requirements have been incorporated as part of the
management practice requirements that apply to each CMPU subject to the
final rule. However, following review of public comments, we added an
alternative for equipment leaks in the final rule that allows an owner
or operator to use Method 21 in lieu of sensory-based leak detection.
Method 21 is at least equivalent to the leak inspection requirements we
are finalizing in this rule.
h. Overlapping Rules
The final rule specifies that when equipment at an affected source
is subject to both this rule and the provisions of another rule,
compliance with the requirements of the other rule constitutes
compliance with this final rule for the subject equipment if the owner
or operator determines that the other emission control, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and/or reporting requirements provide at least
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions and compliance assurance
as the requirements in the final rule. For example, if the control
requirements in the other rule are at least as stringent as those
provided in this rule, but the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
requirement in the other rule are not as stringent or comprehensive,
the source may comply with the control requirements from the other
rule, but must comply with the more stringent monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule. The final rule
requires a source that is subject to overlapping standards to identify
in its Notification of Compliance Status all of the alternative
requirements with which the source will be complying and provide an
explanation of why the selected requirement is more stringent than this
rule. The final rule also states that sources are responsible for
making accurate determinations concerning the more stringent standard
and noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later
determined that the source was in error in its initial notification of
compliance and, as a result, is violating this rule. Compliance with
this rule is the responsibility of the affected source regardless of
any notification of compliance.
C. Initial Compliance
For some control devices, the proposed rule allowed initial
compliance to be demonstrated using either design evaluations or
performance tests, but performance tests were required for certain
other control devices. In response to comments, the final rule allows
design evaluations as an alternative to performance tests for all
control devices.
[[Page 56013]]
To clarify the initial compliance requirements for batch process
vents and continuous process vents, some of the language from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF that was referenced in Table 2 to the proposed
rule has been written directly into 40 CFR 63.11496(g) of the final
rule.
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The proposed rule referenced parts of the General Provisions as
well as subparts SS, FFFF, and NNNNNN in 40 CFR part 63 for all control
device monitoring requirements. With two exceptions, these monitoring
requirements are retained in the final rule. One change in the final
rule is that pH may be measured once per day rather than continuously
for any halogen scrubber. The second change from proposal is that Table
9 to the final rule specifies that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply to
affected sources under this rule. We made this change so that EPA
Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and EPA Quality Assurance
Procedure 4, when finalized, will not apply to affected sources under
this rule.
In addition to monitoring requirements, the proposed rule
referenced recordkeeping requirements in several other rules. To
clarify these requirements, 40 CFR 63.11501(c) of the final rule lists
all of the recordkeeping requirements and references the specific
section in each rule that requires it. The notification and reporting
requirements have also been revised in the final rule. For example,
additional notification requirements have been incorporated into the
final rule for certain transfer operations and overlapping rules as
discussed above.
E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
During the comment period of the proposed rule, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated two
provisions in EPA's CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions
of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the
Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,''
that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated
into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories,
these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with
the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during
periods of SSM.
Industry intervenors appealed the December 2008 Sierra Club
decision by filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 2009, the
District of Columbia Circuit denied these petitions. On August 5, 2009,
EPA filed a motion seeking a 60-day stay of the mandate. On August 6,
2009, industry intervenors filed a motion to stay the mandate pending
their appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The
Court recently denied industry intervenors' motion to stay the mandate
and granted EPA's motion, directing the Clerk of the Court not to issue
the mandate prior to October 6, 2009. Until the District of Columbia
Circuit issues the mandate effectuating the vacatur, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
and (h)(1) remain in effect.
The proposed rule included a reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
(h)(1). In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we revised Table 9, which
addresses the applicability of the Part 63 General Provisions to the
source categories at issue in this rule, to state that 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As such, the final emission
standards summarized in section IV of this preamble apply at all times.
As noted in section IV of this preamble, we are setting a separate
emission standard for the nine source categories at issue here that
applies to continuous process vents during periods of startup and
shutdown, and that standard is 85 percent control, instead of the 95
percent control required at all other times. We are establishing a
separate emission standard for these periods because they are
characterized by activities such as the filling, emptying, and inerting
of vessels, which generally result in significantly different emissions
than normal operations. As for batch processes, startup and shutdown
are part of their normal operations and, therefore, are already
addressed by the standards. In addition, storage tanks, heat exchange
systems, and transfer operations do not include startup and shutdown
activities.
We have also added language making clear that, to the extent this
rule incorporates by reference emission standards from other CAA
section 112(d) rules, and those rules contain an exemption from the
applicable emission standard during periods of SSM, that exemption does
not apply for purposes of this rule.
F. Title V
Pursuant to section 502(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may ``in
the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable
provisions of [the Act], promulgate regulations to exempt one or more
[non-major] source categories (in whole or in part) from the
requirements of [title V] if the Administrator finds that compliance
with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome on such categories. * * *'' We proposed to exempt the
sources in the chemical manufacturing area source categories subject to
this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since
proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exemption and determined
that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemption for certain
synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for
these categories, we did not consider the large number of synthetic
area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source
thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. The oversight
occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules
that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low
emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the
chemical manufacturing area source category, we estimate 75 facilities
are synthetic area sources for HAP and at least 10 percent of these
facilities have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, in
the final rule, title V permits are required for area sources in the
nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area
sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduced their HAP
emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air
pollution control devices. We are, however, finalizing the exemption
from the requirements of title V for those synthetic area sources that
limited their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds solely
by complying with operational limits (e.g., limiting the hours the
facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources
that neither installed controls nor took operational limits to become
an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule finding that
compliance with title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these source
categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.
Based on our additional review of the source categories since
proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthetic area sources
that installed controls is not appropriate given the facts associated
with these sources as set forth below, and we do not believe title V is
unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unlike many other area
[[Page 56014]]
source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing
the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the nine
chemical manufacturing area source categories include a large number of
synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become
area sources. We evaluated other area source categories and determined
that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted
facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before
control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we
estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities that are synthetic
area sources for HAP by virtue of installing controls would have
uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tons per year. Synthetic area
sources that installed controls represent more than 10 percent of the
total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In
fact, these sources are much more like the major sources of HAP subject
to the HON and the MON. In addition, many of these sources are located
in cities, and often in close proximity to residential and commercial
centers where large numbers of people live and work. The record also
indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly
higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than the other sources in
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories. For example, we
have identified seven facilities that have uncontrolled emissions that
exceed 100 tpy.
For these reasons, we believe that the additional public
participation and compliance benefits of additional informational,
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that
exist in title V should be the same for a major source that installed a
control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that
is major and installed a control device to comply with an applicable
major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source
levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the
synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing
add-on controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance
programs in place because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed
the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional
public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title
V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their
emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on
the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant
because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated
than the natural area sources and sources that took operational limits
to become area sources.
For these reasons above, we have decided not to finalize the title
V exemption for these facilities. The final rule requires title V
permits for major sources of HAP emissions that installed controls
after 1990 to become area sources of HAP emissions. We estimate that
approximately 150 sources that will be subject to this rule are
required to have title V permits because of criteria pollutants and the
final rule will require an additional 47 affected area sources to
obtain title V permits.
We are not requiring title V permits for sources that reduced their
emissions to area source levels by taking operational restrictions,
such as restricting hours of operation or production, or for natural
area sources. We conclude that our analysis in the proposed rule that
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for sources in the Chemical
Manufacturing source categories remains accurate for the sources we are
exempting.
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
The final NESHAP applies to each CMPU that is located at an area
source of HAP emissions that uses as feedstocks, generates as
byproducts, or produces as products any of the Table 1 HAP, where the
Table 1 HAP are present in the feedstocks or are generated and present
in the process fluid at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for
carcinogens, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. A CMPU
includes all process equipment, vents, and activities involved in the
production of a material described by NAICS code 325, and it consists
of one or more unit operations and all associated recovery devices. A
CMPU also includes each surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, pump,
compressor, agitator, pressure relief device or valve, sampling
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the
production of NAICS code 325 materials. An affected source is the
facility-wide collection of all CMPUs that use, generate, or produce
one or more Table 1 HAP. An affected source also includes each heat
exchange system and wastewater system that is associated with any CMPU
that uses, generates, or produces one or more Table 1 HAP.
The nine chemical manufacturing area source categories include
production of most of the materials classified under NAICS 325. The
final rule specifies applicability based on CMPUs that are used to
produce chemicals classified under NAICS 325, except for production of
materials in NAICS 325 that are subject to other area source standards,
as specified in the rule, see 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(1), and specific
operations that are not considered to be chemical manufacturing, such
as photographic paper (NAICS 325992), as described in 40 CFR
63.11494(c)(2) of the final rule.
To be subject to the rule, the CMPU must use as feedstocks,
generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the 15 chemical
manufacturing urban HAP. If the CMPU is subject to the final rule, the
standards apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from the
CMPU and all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from the CMPU,
depending on the type of HAP that triggers applicability under the
rule. Specifically, a CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required
to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP from the CMPU, a CMPU
using only Table 1 metal HAP is required to control all CAA section
112(b) metal HAP from the CMPU, and a CMPU using both metal and organic
Table 1 HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal and
organic HAP
B. Compliance Dates
All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this
final rule must comply with the final rule requirements for their
existing operations no later than October 29, 2012. A new area source
must comply with the final rule requirements by October 29, 2009 or
upon startup, whichever is later. For the purposes of determining
compliance with the rule, a new source is a source that commenced
construction or reconstruction after October 6, 2008.
C. Standards
For each CMPU that is part of an affected source, the final rule
requires you to implement management practices that apply to all
process equipment and other equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and
connectors) in the CMPU. In addition to the management practices, the
final rule requires compliance with numerical emission limits and
additional emission control requirements for certain process vents,
storage tanks, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, wastewater
systems,
[[Page 56015]]
and heat exchange systems that meet specified conditions. Management
practice requirements and all numerical emission limits and other
emission control requirements, except the emission limit for batch
process vents, are the same at existing and new sources.
1. Management Practices
Owners and operators of CMPUs subject to this rule are required to
comply with the following management practice requirements. All process
vessels must be equipped with a cover or lid that is in place at all
times when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and
sampling. Transfer of liquids containing chemical manufacturing organic
urban HAP to tank trucks or railcars must be conducted using submerged
loading or bottom loading, except for reactive or resinous materials.
You must identify each reactive or resinous material in your
Notification of Compliance Status or the semiannual compliance report
that covers the period when the material is first transferred. You must
also conduct inspections of equipment within the CMPU quarterly to
demonstrate compliance with the above management practices and confirm
that all CMPU are sound and free of leaks. Any leaks must be repaired
within 15 days of finding the leak or you must document the reason for
the delay. In addition, you must keep records of the inspection dates,
inspection results, and the dates of equipment repairs.
Owners or operators of small heat exchange systems that are part of
a CMPU subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate of less
than 8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) and that do not meet the
criteria in 40 CFR 63.104(a) are required to develop a heat exchange
system inspection plan that describes the inspections that will be
performed to identify hydrocarbons in the cooling water. The
inspections must be conducted quarterly and may include a number of
sensory inspection options for determining indications of a leak, such
as visible floating hydrocarbon, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, or
chemical addition rates. You must either perform repairs to eliminate
indications of a leak or take samples and determine there is no leak
(as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6)). Repairs must be completed within
45 days after the inspection during which you observe indications of a
leak, or you must document the reason for the delay. In addition, you
must keep records of the heat exchange system inspection dates,
inspection results, and the dates of leak repairs.
As an alternative to the management practice requirements for small
heat exchange systems, the final rule allows compliance with the
requirements for large heat exchange systems with flow rates of 8,000
gal/min or greater (i.e., the HON heat exchange system requirements in
40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c)).
2. Standards for Batch Process Vents
Owners and operators of a CMPU with collective uncontrolled organic
HAP emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 lbs/yr from all batch
process vents associated with an affected CMPU must meet emission
limits for the organic HAP emissions. Examples of batch process vents
include, but are not limited to, vents on reactors, filters,
centrifuges, condensers used for product recovery, and process tanks.
These vents include intermittent emissions from continuous operations
as well as emissions from batch operations.
For an existing source, one control option is to reduce the
collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the CMPU by at least
85 percent by venting emissions from a sufficient number of vents
through one or more closed vent system to any combination of control
devices (excluding a flare). Alternatively, you may route uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions from one or more batch process vents within the
CMPU through one or more closed vent systems and meet an outlet
concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (as total
organic carbon or total organic HAP) or through a closed vent system to
a flare, and comply with the 85 percent reduction for the remaining
vents in the CMPU. For a new source, the requirements are the same as
for an existing source, except the required reduction is 90 percent
instead of 85 percent.
When halogenated organic HAP compounds from batch process vents are
controlled by combustion, you must also reduce the hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP generated in the combustion device by at least 95 percent,
to no more than 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to no more than 20
ppmv. As an alternative to post-combustion halogen control, you may
instead reduce the halogen atom mass emissions prior to the combustion
device to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or 20 ppmv.
3. Standards for Continuous Process Vents
We are finalizing the proposed GACT requirements for organic HAP
emissions from each continuous process vent with a TRE index value less
than or equal to 1.0. Specifically, organic HAP emissions from each
continuous process vent with a TRE index value less than or equal to
1.0 must meet any one of several emission control alternatives. One
option is to reduce the organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by
routing through a closed vent system to one or more control devices.
Alternatively, you may route the emissions to a flare, or you may meet
the concentration option described above for batch process vents.
Because a continuous process vent is determined after the last recovery
device, another option is to use a recovery device from which the vent
stream is determined to have a TRE greater than 1.0. In addition, we
are establishing a requirement to reduce the organic HAP emissions from
continuous process vents with a TRE less than 1.0 by at least 85
percent during periods of startup and shutdown. Halogenated organic
emissions from continuous process vents are subject to the same
requirements described above for halogenated organic HAP emissions from
batch process vents.
4. Standards for Metal HAP Process Vents
Owners and operators are required to reduce metal HAP emissions by
at least 95 percent from each CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP
emissions of 400 lbs/yr or more. The metal HAP process vent emissions
must be routed through a closed-vent system to a control device.
5. Standards for Storage Tanks, Surge Control Vessels, and Bottoms
Receivers
We are finalizing the proposed emission controls for emissions from
storage tanks, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers that have
(1) a capacity of 40,000 gallons or greater with vapor pressure of
total organic HAP of 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) or greater and less than
76.6 kPa or (2) a capacity of 20,000 gallons or greater and less than
40,000 gallons with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 27.6 kPa or
greater and less than 76.6 kPa. Control options in the final rule
include: (1) Use of an internal or external floating roof; (2) venting
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by at least 95 percent; (3) vapor balancing to the tank
truck or railcar from which the tank is filled; (4) routing to a flare;
or (5) routing to a fuel gas system or process. Storage tanks, surge
control vessels, and bottoms receivers with capacity of 20,000 gallons
or greater with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 76.6 kPa or
greater must be controlled using any of the above
[[Page 56016]]
options except a floating roof. Storage tanks, surge control vessels,
or bottoms receivers with a vent stream that contains halogenated
compounds and that is controlled by combustion must also meet the same
requirements described above for halogenated batch process vents.
6. Standards for Wastewater Systems
All wastewater discarded from a CMPU subject to the rule must be
treated. In addition, each process wastewater stream and each
maintenance wastewater stream in which the total PSHAP concentration is
10,000 ppmw or greater, and which contains both an organic and an
aqueous phase, must be decanted or separated by other techniques.
Alternatively, wastewater streams that meet these conditions may be
hard piped to onsite treatment as hazardous waste or hard piped to a
collection tank or other vessel and shipped offsite for any of the same
types of treatment. If the wastewater is separated into organic and
aqueous layers, the organic material must be recycled to a process,
used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste. The separated aqueous
phase, like other process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that
does not separate into an organic and an aqueous phase, must receive
some type of treatment, either onsite or offsite, as described above.
7. Standards for Heat Exchange Systems
Owners or operators of heat exchange systems with cooling water
flow rate of 8,000 gal/min or greater must develop and operate in
accordance with a monitoring plan that documents the procedures to be
used to detect leaks of process fluids into cooling water. The plan
must require monitoring of one or more surrogate indicators or
monitoring of one or more process parameters or other conditions that
indicate a leak. You must conduct the monitoring at least quarterly.
Leaks must be repaired within 45 calendar days after detection unless
specified conditions for delay of repair are met. You must keep records
of leaks detected by methods described in your monitoring plan or by
other methods, and you must keep records of the dates of repairs. A
compliance alternative has been incorporated into the final rule that
allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40
CFR 63.104(b). This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of
HAP emission reductions as the standards that we are finalizing today.
D. Initial Compliance Requirements
To demonstrate initial compliance with the management practices in
the final rule, owners and operators of affected new and existing
sources must certify that they have implemented all required management
practices by the compliance date. To demonstrate initial compliance
with the emissions control requirements, by the compliance date, the
source must install and have operational, any required add on control
equipment and/or have implemented any design requirements necessary to
comply with the applicable standard.
For batch process vents and metal HAP process vents, owners and
operators must either calculate uncontrolled emissions or demonstrate
that organic HAP usage is below 10,000 lb/yr or metal HAP usage is
below 400 lb/yr. The final rule specifies that HAP emissions or usage
may be determined based on process knowledge, engineering assessments,
or test data. For continuous process vents with an organic HAP emission
rate greater than 0.1 lb/hr, owners and operators must determine the
TRE index value. For wastewater streams, owners and operators must
determine if the PSHAP concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw and contains
separate aqueous and organic layers. All wastewater stream
characterization determinations may be based on process knowledge,
engineering assessments, or test data.
To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction or
outlet concentration emission limit in this final rule, owners and
operators must conduct either a performance test or design evaluation.
Limits for operating parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate
ongoing compliance must be established during the performance test or
design evaluation.
E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
Quarterly inspections are required to demonstrate compliance with
the management practice requirements and the standards for large heat
exchange systems. Storage tanks equipped with floating roofs are also
subject to periodic inspections and, for external floating roofs, seal
gap measurements. Control device operating parameters must be
continuously monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance with percent
reduction or outlet concentration emission limits, and the continuous
presence of a pilot flame must be verified in flares. Closed vent
systems that convey emissions to a control device must be monitored
using Method 21 or by audible, visual, or olfactory (AVO) techniques,
depending on the construction material and the source of the emissions.
F. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source is
required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions
to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9
of the final rule. Each facility is required to submit an Initial
Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions and 40 CFR
63.11501 of the final rule. Among other things, the owner or operator
must submit a compliance report for each semiannual reporting period
during which a deviation occurred, a leak was not repaired within the
specified time period, or a process change occurred that affected a
previous compliance determination or resulted in a new compliance
determination, including changes in the method of compliance.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 35 comments on the proposed rule from
industry representatives, trade associations, State and Federal
agencies, industry consultants, one environmental group, and the
general public during the public comment period. In addition, two
speakers provided testimony at a public hearing. Sections V.A through
V.H of this preamble summarize the significant comments and explain our
response. Other comments addressed minor clarifications to this rule or
other issues that we did not consider to be significant; these comments
and our responses to them are provided in the Response to Comments
Document.
A. Applicability
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA establish one or
more de minimis applicability thresholds below which area sources that
process or emit small amounts of urban HAP would be exempt from the
rule. For example, some commenters requested a more comprehensive
version of the proposed concentration thresholds of 0.1 and 1.0 percent
urban HAP in feedstocks and products that would also apply to fuels,
by-products, co-products, intermediates, HAP generated in the process,
and/or catalysts. Other commenters requested a mass-based HAP usage or
processing threshold (e.g., 2 megagrams per year or 25,000 lbs/yr),
actual or uncontrolled HAP emissions thresholds between 50
[[Page 56017]]
lbs/yr and 6.25 tpy, a threshold based on the quantity of HAP stored
onsite (consistent with the criteria that are used to determine
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 311/312 Tier 2 reporting
thresholds), or a combination of thresholds.
Two commenters argued that EPA has legal authority to set de
minimis applicability thresholds. One commenter noted that the courts
have determined that EPA has the authority to establish de minimis
thresholds where the application of the statutory requirements would be
of trivial or no value environmentally (see Alabama Power Co. v.
Costle, 636 F 2d 323.360-61; D.C. Cir. 1979). Another commenter noted
that none of the provisions in the CAA related to EPA's obligation to
regulate area sources expressly prohibits EPA from using thresholds to
define the applicability of GACT standards, and they do not implicitly
mandate that EPA must regulate every HAP emission from an area source.
Furthermore, one commenter noted that the proposed rule already
includes de minimis thresholds (the 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent urban
HAP concentrations in feedstocks and products), and previous rules have
included de minimis thresholds.
Response: Regulation of the nine chemical manufacturing area source
categories is necessary for the Agency to meet the requirements of CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) to regulate area source categories
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP. We listed
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories because they
emit urban HAP and these categories were necessary to satisfy our
requirement to regulate area sources representing 90 percent of the
area source emissions of 15 of the 30 urban HAP. Area sources are, by
definition, smaller sources and we recognize that the nine area source
categories at issue are comprised of a large number of relatively small
facilities. But we note that, although area sources individually may
emit relatively low amounts of HAP, collectively, the level of
emissions is significant.
As discussed above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
Agency determined that it was necessary to regulate these nine area
source categories to fulfill the mandate of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B) to regulate area sources accounting for 90 percent of the
emissions of the urban HAP. In listing the nine chemical manufacturing
area source categories at issue, the Agency did not condition the
listing of any of the categories based on a de minimis level of
emissions of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP, beyond the
feedstock and product limitations discussed below and in the proposed
rule. We are, therefore, appropriately issuing emission standards that
regulate the emissions of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP.
One commenter noted that EPA has included de minimis concentrations
of urban HAP in feedstocks and products for purposes of determining
applicability. In the proposed rule, feedstocks and products were
defined as materials that contain the Table 1 HAP in concentrations
greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens or greater than 1.0 percent
for noncarcinogens. As we have pointed out in several other area source
rulemakings, the CAA section 112(k) inventory was primarily based on
the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and that is the case for the
chemical manufacturing area source categories as well. The reporting
requirements for the TRI do not include de minimis concentrations of
toxic chemicals in mixtures, as reflected in the above concentration
levels; therefore, the CAA section 112(k) inventory would not have
included emissions from operations involving chemicals below these
concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting: Community Right-To-Know (Reporting Requirements).
Accordingly, the percentages noted above define the scope of the listed
source category; they are not exemptions. We received no adverse
comment on this issue, and we are finalizing the Table 1 HAP thresholds
for feedstocks and products in this rule.
We have reviewed the listing decision for the nine chemical
manufacturing area source categories and have not identified any
information suggesting that small sources were not included in our
listing decision. As such, we do not believe we can satisfy our
requirement to regulate sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP unless we subject all
sources that emit those HAP to regulation in this rule.
Comment: Many commenters stated that applicability of the affected
source should be limited to individual emission points, individual
process units, or the group of process units that involve urban HAP,
not all chemical manufacturing operations, as was proposed. According
to the commenters, this change is needed in order to alleviate burden
and establish a cost-effective rule, particularly for specialty batch
manufacturers that may operate processes that use an urban HAP
infrequently. Commenters stated that EPA is not required to regulate
HAP other than the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP needed to meet
the 90 percent threshold. One commenter disagreed with EPA's basis for
establishing the two batch process vent subcategories where EPA
concluded that emissions > 19,000 lbs/yr represents solvent based, high
production volume processes with concentrated emission streams. The
commenter stated that this is only valid when applied to individual
processes, but invalid when applied to entire sites. Another commenter
stated that specialty chemical manufacturers would be
disproportionately impacted by the proposed rule because of frequent
variations and changes in product lines along with the unique aspects
of batch processing. This commenter stated that specialty chemical
producers will have to use thermal oxidizers with halogen controls, not
condensers as EPA assumed, if all chemical manufacturing operations are
covered. Commenters noted that costs to characterize wastewater streams
that contain no urban HAP would be significant if all chemical
manufacturing operations are covered. One commenter also expressed
concern that a facility-wide grouping of operations is subject to
various interpretations, which could lead to inconsistent
implementation among the nine industry sectors covered by the rule. On
the other hand, several commenters suggested that applicability be
based on the familiar concept of ``chemical manufacturing process
units'' as in other rules. Also, several commenters noted that a
primary concern is that the proposed rule would require compliance
facility-wide upon startup of any individual process that involves an
urban HAP and that their concerns would be minimized, if not
eliminated, if the affected source were based on process units that
involve urban HAP rather than all chemical manufacturing operations.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule we explained the
Agency's authority to regulate all HAP, not only urban HAP, for those
area source categories needed to achieve the 90 percent requirement in
CAA section 112(c)(3). See 73 FR 58358. In the proposal, we explained
that we were applying the standards to the entire facility and all HAP
because the management practice requirements are equally effective for
all HAP and there is little, if any, additional cost for implementing
the management practices for all emission sources. In addition, where
add-on controls are required, demonstrating compliance for total HAP
[[Page 56018]]
is less burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP and
that the controls are equally effective at reducing non-urban HAP
emissions. We also explained that it was our understanding that process
vents could be ducted together easily so that the cost for controlling
HAP emissions from all process vents would not greatly increase if the
rule so applied. We also assumed when proposing the rule that
facilities in these categories generally have only one or two processes
and that the processes are in close proximity to one another and that
facilities are not changing products or processes on a regular basis.
Commenters contend that many of our assumptions were in error and
that if we based rule applicability on a CMPU basis instead of a
facility wide basis the cost of compliance with the rule and many of
their concerns would be addressed. As discussed below, based on the
commenters' suggestion and an evaluation of the industry and costs
associated with the proposed rule, we have in the final rule defined
the affected source as the CMPUs that emit the Table 1 HAP and the heat
exchange systems and wastewater systems associated with those CMPUs
instead of requiring compliance for the entire facility if one process
contains Table 1 HAP. As discussed in more detail below, we believe
that most of our assumptions at proposal remain accurate because of
this change.
In addition, as we stated in the proposal, we continue to believe
that we have the authority to address all CAA section 112(b) organic
and metal HAP for those CMPUs subject to this final rule. Commenters
argue that EPA is not legally required to address all HAP, but they do
not state that the Agency has exceeded its discretion in doing so. For
the reasons set forth in the proposal, we appropriately exercised our
discretion to regulate the HAP at issue in this final rule. Moreover,
the commenter does not refute that the management practices and
emission limits are equally effective at removing non-urban metal and
organic HAP, and that demonstrating compliance for total HAP is less
burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP for those
sources required to install add-on controls. For these reasons, the
final rule requires area sources to control all 112(b) organic HAP from
a CMPU that emits a Table 1 organic HAP and control all 112(b) metal
HAP from a CMPU that emits Table 1 metal HAP, as well as the heat
exchange systems and wastewater systems associated with those CMPUs.
At proposal we estimated four facilities would have uncontrolled
batch process vent emissions greater than 19,000 lbs/yr, we assumed
condensers could be used to control the emissions, and we estimated the
total annual control cost would be $0.1 million/yr. We did not consider
costs for facilities that are currently controlled to levels less than
the proposed 90 percent level. After reevaluating the data, we estimate
that 19 facilities have uncontrolled emissions greater than 19,000 lbs/
yr, including the four uncontrolled facilities from the proposed
analysis and another four facilities with control levels greater than
90 percent. If we had accounted for facilities with low current control
levels, assumed centralized thermal oxidizers would be needed, and
assumed considerably more duct work and related manifolding equipment
was needed to connect numerous vents from several processes rather than
only one or two processes, then the costs would be at least $2.1
million/yr, and the cost-effectiveness would be at least $17,000/ton of
HAP controlled.
Because of our misunderstanding of the sources' configuration, we
significantly underestimated the costs of compliance with the proposed
rule when we defined the affected source as the entire facility if
Table 1 HAP was emitted from any process. As stated above, we are
revising the rule to require compliance only by CMPUs that emit one of
the Table 1 HAP and heat exchange systems and wastewater systems
associated with those CMPUs. Under the new construct, the cost and
technological assumptions we made in the proposal are correct because
the process vents of a CMPU are most likely to be located in the same
building or otherwise in close proximity. In addition, estimating HAP
in process vents and wastewater on a process basis is more consistent
with normal operating practices for batch processes, and the owner or
operator can estimate annual emissions by tracking the number of
batches.
With this change, we are addressing the concern raised by some
commenters that for complex facilities (according to a commenter the
number of processes can exceed 100) costs may be significant for
ducting all batch vents to a central control device. The change will
also limit applicability such that the commenters' concern that the
proposed rule would require compliance facility-wide upon startup of
any individual process that involves an urban HAP will be eliminated.
The Agency was mindful of the concern that requiring facility-wide
compliance for each new process using a Table 1 HAP could affect a
source's willingness to experiment with new products containing a Table
1 HAP. In addition, the costs to comply with such a rule would be
significant and sources would not know whether new product lines would
be profitable before being developed or whether the attempts to develop
new products would be successful. Under the final rule, facilities
using, producing, or generating a Table 1 HAP in a CMPU will only have
to comply with the rule for that specific CMPU.
The change in scope of the affected source in the final rule from
the entire facility to the CMPUs that emit Table 1 HAP is necessary
because of our incorrect assumptions at proposal, as explained above.
The actual costs and environmental benefits for the final rule will be
similar to what was projected in the proposed rule. The rule will
regulate the same number of facilities, the rule will require add-on
controls for approximately the same number of units that we estimated
at the time of proposal, and the rule will achieve comparable
reductions of HAP and particulate matter (PM) emissions.
Although commenters agreed that EPA has the authority to regulate
non-urban HAP, they suggest that the Agency only regulate the Table 1
HAP to reduce the burden and costs of compliance for some area sources.
We believe we have addressed these concerns by redefining the affected
source to be on a CMPU basis. If the CMPU uses, generates, or produces
one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, then the standards
apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP in the affected CMPU.
Similarly, if the CMPU uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical
manufacturing metal urban HAP, then the standards apply to all CAA
section 112(b) metal HAP in the process units and the associated vents.
We continue to believe that the costs of controlling all organic or
metal HAP, as applicable, are reasonable. We find here, as we explained
at proposal, that the management practices and control requirements in
this rule that reduce urban organic HAP and urban metal HAP from the
affected sources are equally affective at reducing all CAA section
112(b) organic HAP or metal HAP, respectively.
Comment: Several commenters suggested exempting biological products
(NAICS 325414), tall oil recovery systems, and carbon monoxide so that
the area source rule is consistent with the MON. One commenter
requested that the rule explicitly state whether or not it applies to
ethanol production facilities.
Response: We have not exempted the cited processes, including
industrial ethanol production, because they are
[[Page 56019]]
included in the scope of the nine listed area source categories (NAICS
325). However, the rule does not apply to beverage alcohol production,
which is in NAICS 312.
Comment: Several commenters requested that facilities not be
required to consider the presence of urban metal HAP in catalysts when
determining applicability of the rule because the catalysts remain
unchanged in the process equipment for significant periods of time, and
their use results in little, if any, emissions. One commenter observed
that, for catalysts, the potential for emissions is only from their
production and recycling, not their use in fixed beds.
Other commenters requested exemptions for other forms of metals
(e.g., in nutrients for biological processes and metals in piping).
Response: We are concerned only with metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP
in structures and metal HAP existing as articles (as defined in 40 CFR
372.3), where no metal HAP is released to the atmosphere, are not
covered by this rule. However, if the use of catalysts in the processes
results in Table 1 metal HAP emissions from the CMPU, then the CMPU is
subject to the applicable standards for the affected CMPU. If the
commenters' assessment of the level of emissions is accurate,
management practices would likely apply in these cases because the
sources would likely not fall within the subcategory for which add-on
emission controls are required.
B. Compliance Dates
Comment: Several commenters requested adequate compliance time for
existing sources that do not become subject to the rule until a change
introduces urban HAP for the first time after promulgation of the final
rule or the initial compliance date. The commenters indicated that such
a situation would occur if a facility (1) adds a new process, with or
without new equipment, that introduces an urban HAP, or (2) makes a
process change that introduces an urban HAP (perhaps unexpectedly as an
impurity in a feedstock or generated as a byproduct). Several
commenters also requested adequate compliance time for new sources.
Response: The rule has a compliance period of 3 years for existing
sources as authorized in the Part 63 General Provisions and section
112(i)(3) of the CAA. New processes at an existing source, whether for
a new process unit or to expand an existing process unit, would become
part of the existing source. If an existing source starts using a Table
1 HAP after the compliance date for existing sources has passed, the
affected CMPU must comply with the standards at the time the new
process begins. New sources must be in compliance upon startup or the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register,
whichever is later.
C. Standards
1. General Issues
Comment: One commenter stated that, while the CAA gives the Agency
the authority to issue GACT standards under section 112(d)(5) for area
sources, EPA's decision to issue GACT standards instead of MACT
standards is only valid if the Agency provides a rational explanation
to support the decision. The commenter further stated that EPA provided
no explanation for its decision to issue GACT standards instead of MACT
standards and that this alone makes the Agency's decision arbitrary and
capricious. The commenter also maintains that the Agency evaluated
proposed GACT measures by considering only cost-effectiveness. The
commenter states that the Agency rejected on cost-effectiveness grounds
the control options for the following emission sources: continuous
process vents with a TRE greater than 1; batch process vents for
facilities emitting less than 19,000 lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions;
metal HAP process vents for facilities emitting less than 100 lbs/yr;
cooling tower systems with cooling water flow rates less than 8,000
gal/min; equipment leaks; and transfer operations. The commenter
maintains that the statute does not direct EPA to set standards based
on cost-effectiveness, and that the Agency cannot and does not argue
that the control measures that were rejected are not appropriate for
application by chemical manufacturing plants. The commenter also argues
that the Agency does not claim that the economic impacts are too great,
explain how profitable the plants are, or how economically significant
the controls would be on the sources if required in this rule. The
commenter maintains that EPA based its decision only on the Agency's
views on cost-effectiveness and that EPA's views on this issue are not
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5) and, therefore, the standards are
unlawful.
Response: As the commenter recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5),
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources. Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which
is entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:
With respect only to categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices by such sources to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis added).
There are two critical aspects to CAA section 112(d)(5). First, CAA
section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of
area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does
not dispute that EPA listed the nine area source categories noted above
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 112(d)(5)
provides that, for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c),
EPA ``may, in lieu of '' the authorities provided in CAA section
112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission
standards established under that provision ``require the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as MACT). CAA section
112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the ``maximum degree of
reduction in emissions'' for new and existing sources. See CAA section
112(d)(3).\6\ Webster's dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of ''
to mean ``in the place of '' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New
Riverside University (1994). Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA
to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for
the use of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than
that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be
[[Page 56020]]
one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), which is the case
here.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree
of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is
known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission
reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, and
for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the
Administrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2)
directs EPA to consider whether more stringent emission reductions
(so called beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically achievable
considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission
reduction.
\7\ CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f).
See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing
that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards
under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission
standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing
GACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards.
The commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA
first conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category, and only
if cost or some other reason made applying the MACT standard
inappropriate for the category, would EPA be able to issue a standard
under CAA section 112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in
CAA section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT
analysis, floor analysis, or beyond-the-floor analysis, before the
Agency could issue a CAA section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress
authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories
listed under CAA section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA has
done in this rulemaking.
Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, we
did explain at proposal that being able to consider costs and economic
impacts is important when establishing standards for categories like
these with many small sources. Furthermore, EPA must set a GACT
standard that is consistent with the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As
explained in the proposed rule and below, in determining what
constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates
the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP
emissions that are generally available for the area source category.
See 73 FR 58354. The legislative history supporting CAA section
112(d)(5) provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what
constitutes GACT for the area source category.\8\ EPA cannot consider
cost in setting MACT floors, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3).
Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major
sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA to consider costs in
setting GACT standards for area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5),
but did not permit that consideration in setting MACT floors for major
sources. This important dichotomy between CAA section 112(d)(3) and CAA
section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress sought to do
precisely what the title of CAA section 112(d)(5) states--provide EPA
the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Additional information on the definition of ``generally
available control technology or management practices'' (GACT) is
found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA (S.
Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). That report
states that GACT is to encompass:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued
standards for the area source categories at issue here under CAA
section 112(d)(5), and cost-effectiveness was not the only
consideration in setting the standards. As stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule:
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the
control technologies and management practices that are generally
available to the area sources in the source category. We also
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same
industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and
management practices are transferable and generally available to
area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices
could be considered generally available for the area source category
at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a
particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic
impacts of available control technologies and management practices
on that category.
73 FR 58354, October 6, 2008.
As the commenter noted, EPA proposed emission standards for eight
identified emission sources at chemical manufacturing area sources:
Continuous process vents; batch process vents; metal HAP process vents;
storage tanks; cooling tower systems; equipment leaks; transfer
operations; and wastewater systems. We also proposed to subcategorize
continuous process vents, batch process vents, metal HAP process vents,
storage tanks, cooling tower systems, and wastewater systems based on
variations of the size and type of the facility or the affected
operation. We reviewed the GACT applied at area sources in the chemical
manufacturing source categories at issue for each of the emission
sources covered in the proposed rule. In determining what was generally
available, we first considered what was generally available for each
category or subcategory of emission source based on what was being
applied at facilities or for emissions sources of a similar size and/or
type of facility or emission source. For example, for continuous
process vents, we considered what controls and management practices
were in place for units with a TRE greater than 1 and what controls and
management practices were in place for units with a TRE less than 1.
For batch process vents, we considered what controls and management
practices were in place at facilities that emitted more than 19,000
lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions and what controls and management
practices were in place at facilities that emitted less than 19,000
lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions. We also considered the control
technologies and management practices employed by chemical
manufacturing area sources already subject to standards, by facilities
in other areas source categories, and by chemical manufacturing major
sources. 73 FR 58366.
After determining what controls and management practices were
generally available to the emission sources in the nine source
categories at issue, we considered the costs and economic impacts
associated with requiring the various controls and management practices
before determining what constituted GACT for each emission source. The
Agency specifically considered the cost-effectiveness of the different
control technologies and management practices on the categories and
subcategories of emission sources as a means of evaluating the costs of
those emission standards. EPA evaluated the controls and management
practices that were generally available and, in certain circumstances,
determined that GACT was not add-on controls because the cost-
effectiveness of such controls would not have been reasonable if
applied to all facilities or emission sources in a given category or
subcategory.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Agency's consideration
of cost-effectiveness in establishing GACT and the Agency's views on
what is a cost-effective requirement under CAA section 112(d)(5) are
relevant. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit has stated that cost-effectiveness is a reasonable
measure of cost as long as the statute does not mandate a specific
method of determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. D.C.
118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA's decision to
consider costs on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost
analysis). CAA section 112(d)(5) does
[[Page 56021]]
not mandate a specific method for considering cost when setting GACT
standards.
The commenter has provided no information to support the argument
that add-on control requirements for process vents, storage tanks, and
heat exchange systems are generally available for all such emission
sources in each of the subcategories. The commenter also failed to
provide any information indicating that our cost-effectiveness
determinations were unreasonable and, likewise, failed to provide any
information concerning the economic impacts associated with requiring
the standards that the commenter suggests represent GACT. The commenter
appears to take issue with the manner in which the Agency establishes
GACT but provides no alternative approach, instead only attacking the
Agency's consideration of cost (i.e., cost-effectiveness) as a
consideration in the establishment of GACT. The Agency proposed GACT
standards for the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories
and subcategories that were established consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5).
Comment: To avoid duplicative and conflicting requirements and to
minimize burden, several commenters requested clarification of
requirements when parts of an affected source under the area source
NESHAP are also subject to requirements under other rules.
Collectively, the commenters requested that the final rule address
overlap with Part 60 NSPS in subparts Kb, VV, VVa, DDD, III, NNN, RRR,
and the proposed YYY; Part 61 NESHAP in subparts V (as referenced from
subparts F and J), L, Y, BB, and FF; subparts AA, BB, and CC in parts
264 and 265; State and local leak detection and repair (LDAR)
requirements; other area source rules; and permit requirements that
incorporate MACT standards. The commenters made three types of
suggestions: (1) Specify that compliance with provisions in the other
rule demonstrates compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV, (2) allow compliance with whichever rule is the most
stringent, or (3) exempt sources from the requirements in the area
source rule when another rule applies. For example, one commenter
requested that compliance with any existing Federal, State, local, or
permitted LDAR requirements be allowed to demonstrate compliance with
the subpart VVVVVV equipment leak standards, provided the current
requirements are at least as stringent as the final subpart VVVVVV
standards. This commenter also requested exclusions from the wastewater
standards for any wastewater stream that is subject to 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF, whether or not treatment is required under subpart FF, and
for any wastewater streams that become subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart YYY after the compliance date of subpart YYY. Another commenter
stated that when more than one area source rule applies, sources should
be allowed to opt for compliance with the more stringent requirements.
Response: Provisions regarding overlap between 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV and other rules are included in the final rule.
Compliance with provisions in overlapping rules as a means of
demonstrating compliance with this final rule is allowed to the extent
that requirements in the overlapping rule are at least as stringent as
the requirements in subpart VVVVVV. For example, if the emission
limits, monitoring requirements, and associated recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the overlapping rule are all at least as
stringent as the requirements in subpart VVVVVV, then compliance with
the overlapping rule demonstrates compliance with subpart VVVVVV.
Conversely, if all of the provisions in subpart VVVVVV are more
stringent than the corresponding requirements in the overlapping rule,
then the final rule requires compliance with all of the provisions in
subpart VVVVVV. In all other situations where some provisions in the
overlapping rule are more stringent and others are less stringent than
those in this final rule, an owner or operator may demonstrate
compliance with the final rule by complying with all of the most
stringent requirements, whichever rule they are from. Specifically, to
comply with any requirement (emission limit, monitoring requirement,
recordkeeping requirement, and/or reporting requirement) in an
overlapping rule as an alternative to the requirement in subpart
VVVVVV, an owner or operator must first determine that the requirement
in the overlapping rule is at least as stringent as the corresponding
requirement in subpart VVVVVV. This determination also must be
documented in the notification of compliance status or, for processes
added in the future, in the semiannual compliance report that covers
the period when the process starts up. The final rule also states that
sources are responsible for making accurate determinations concerning
the more stringent standard and noncompliance with this rule is not
excused if it is later determined that the source was in error in its
initial notification of compliance and, as a result, is violating this
rule. Compliance with this rule is the responsibility of the affected
source regardless of any notification of compliance or semiannual
compliance report.
Although the final rule includes these provisions for minimizing
the compliance burden associated with overlapping rules, we did not
include all of the commenters' other suggestions, for the reasons
discussed below.
We disagree with one commenter's suggestion that a wastewater
stream subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, but exempt from treatment
under subpart FF should also be exempt from treatment requirements
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. The subpart FF requirements apply
to the benzene content of the stream (or the total benzene in all
waste). The benzene content has no relationship to the urban HAP (or
other PSHAP) content of the stream. Therefore, treatment in accordance
with subpart FF satisfies the treatment requirement under the final
rule, but a stream that contains PSHAP and is exempt from treatment
under subpart FF must receive treatment under this final rule.
40 CFR part 63, Subpart VVVVVV and another area source rule should
never apply at the same time because the affected sources do not
overlap. However, equipment could be subject to subpart VVVVVV and
either the chemical preparations or paint and allied products area
source rules at different times depending on what is being produced. In
these situations, sources should comply with each rule, whenever it is
applicable. Alternatively, the owner or operator may determine the most
stringent requirements in the applicable rules and comply with that
combination of requirements at all times.
Coke by-product recovery plants are not part of the chemical
manufacturing area source category (i.e., they are described by NAICS
324199, All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing);
therefore, 40 CFR part 61, subpart L does not overlap with 40 CFR part
63, subpart VVVVVV.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed management
practice requirements for process vents and storage tanks should not be
finalized. Each of these commenters objected to the management practice
requirements for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The proposed
requirements are not GACT because they are not industry practice, are
not required in other rules, achieve little or no emission reduction,
and cost more than EPA has estimated;
[[Page 56022]]
(2) some equipment is not designed to operate with covers or enclosed,
often because to do so would jeopardize the physical integrity of the
unit (i.e., pressure/vacuum vents on storage tanks); and/or (3) the
requirements duplicate and/or potentially conflict with the proposed
requirements for equipment leaks.
Several commenters made additional points. Two commenters stated
that operating under vacuum should be exempted from or allowed as an
alternative to having all closure mechanisms in the closed position.
One commenter stated that equipment integrity verification procedures
that are part of CGMP required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
for pharmaceutical production processes should be recognized as an
acceptable alternative to the management practices. One commenter
requested an exemption from inspection requirements for inaccessible
and unsafe openings, and another commenter noted that the burden
estimates did not appear to reflect the cost to inspect openings that
are not generally accessible. One commenter stated that, in order to
protect themselves against disagreements with enforcement agencies,
facilities will feel the need to use instrument-based LDAR techniques
instead of the required sensory-based inspections.
One commenter indicated that facilities supplement applicable
equipment leak regulations by having operation personnel watch for AVO
indications of a hydrocarbon leak during their rounds, but they do not
specifically check ``openings'' in equipment. Another commenter
suggested that EPA rely on the equipment leak provisions because many
of the elements in the proposed management practice requirements are
already addressed in the equipment leak provisions.
Several commenters presented estimates of the level of effort and
costs to implement the proposed management practices. One commenter
estimated that total setup and training time would involve 100 hours
for operations personnel, 20 hours of technical time, and 10 hours of
administrative support. This commenter also estimated 20 to 40 hours to
conduct each inspection, and an additional 5 to 10 hours of
administrative support per inspection to manage the program.
A second commenter estimated 40 hours of engineering time to
develop the initial list of openings and equipment, and 4 hours per
year to maintain the list. In addition, this commenter estimated each
inspection would take 24 hours of technician time, and a cost of
several thousand dollars would be incurred for scaffolding and man-lift
rentals. Overall, this commenter estimated the average cost to be about
$6,000/yr per facility; however, the commenter estimated the cost for
one facility would be cut by a factor of 5 if the rule applied only to
processes using or emitting urban HAP rather than all processes.
A third commenter estimated the cost for process vent inspections
to be about $1,200/yr rather than the $300/yr estimated by EPA because
of the potentially large number of process vents that would have to be
considered under the proposed applicability requirements.
A fourth commenter estimated 4 hours per process for setup of the
data management system, 1.25 hours per inspection per process, and a
contractor fee of $125/hr.
Response: In consideration of the specific comments on management
practices as well as comments above regarding the scope of the affected
source, we have made several changes to the proposed management
practices. We made these changes because the proposed management
practice requirements were redundant for CMPU with both batch and
continuous process vents because the proposed requirements for both
emission points applied to all process equipment. In addition, a more
streamlined approach reduces the compliance burden without causing an
increase in emissions.
In the final rule, the various proposed management practices for
process vents, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and storage tanks
were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of
management practices that are applicable to each affected CMPU. The
comprehensive management practices in the final rule include
requirements to equip each vessel with a cover or lid that must be in
place when the vessel contains HAP (except for material addition and
sampling) and to conduct sensory inspections for leaks throughout each
affected CMPU on a quarterly basis. The proposed inspections for
equipment leaks are included without change in the final management
practice requirements, but the final rule also requires comparable
inspections for leaks from process equipment in a CMPU (e.g., reactors,
distillation units, process tanks) and for storage tanks that are part
of a CMPU and that store liquid that contains any Table 1 organic urban
HAP.
We have also reevaluated the costs of the management practices. In
the proposal, we estimated the cost of inspections for equipment leaks
to be $1,187 per year per affected facility. This estimate included
initial costs of $1,200 for 15 hours for planning and training that
were annualized over 10 years plus estimated costs for quarterly
inspection, recordkeeping, and program administration. The average time
for an inspection and related recordkeeping was estimated to be 2 hours
(8 hours per year) per facility, and an additional 7 hours per year
were estimated for administration. We also estimated in the proposal
that management practice inspections for batch process vents,
continuous process vents, metal HAP process vents, and storage tanks
each would take four hours per year, and that recordkeeping related to
the inspections would require 1 hour per year. The total cost per
inspection was estimated to be $276 per year (or $1,100/yr for a
facility with all four types of emission points). This total is
consistent with the low end of the range presented by commenters.
As discussed in sections III.A and V.A of this preamble, the final
rule includes a narrower definition of the affected source and we
believe that this will result in a lower level of effort for conducting
the inspections required by the management practices. Instead of
facility-wide inspections as anticipated at proposal, the final rule
requires inspections only for CMPUs that use, generate or produce Table
1 urban HAP. Therefore, we think that the overall estimates from
commenters are higher than warranted for the final rule. This is
supported by one commenter's estimate of $240/yr (instead of $1,200/yr)
for management practice costs if the inspections apply only to process
units containing chemical manufacturing urban HAP.
The overall time estimated for the final management practice
requirements is less than the total time for the proposed equipment
leak inspections and management practices for process vents and storage
tanks. This is due to fewer process units being subject to management
practice requirements under the final rule. For the final standards, we
assumed 3 hours for each inspection of an average affected facility
with organic HAP and 2 hours for each inspection of an average facility
with metal HAP. The estimated time is lower for facilities with metal
HAP because the inspections will be focused more on openings than on
leak points (e.g., inspections of pumps and valves are not relevant
because metal HAP is only released from process units). We also assumed
2 hours per year for recordkeeping at an average facility. Overall, the
inspection and recordkeeping time was estimated to be
[[Page 56023]]
14 hrs/yr per facility for organic HAP and 10 hrs/yr per facility for
metal HAP. We also estimated that the average initial planning and
setup costs for management practices is the same as the proposed
estimate for the equipment leak inspections. As a result, the total
cost was estimated to be $1,500 per year for an affected facility with
organic HAP and $1,200 per year for an affected facility with metal HAP
emissions. These estimates are in reasonable agreement with the
estimates of costs for management practices put forth by several of the
commenters that suggested the applicability of the rule be based on the
CMPUs using Table 1 HAP as opposed to the entire facility as in the
proposed rule.
One commenter stated that some equipment is not designed to operate
with covers or enclosed, often because to do so would jeopardize the
physical integrity of the unit, but the commenter only listed pressure/
vacuum vents on storage tanks. Because pressure/vacuum vents are not
openings as we contemplate them in the final rule, and are instead part
of the necessary design of certain tanks used for storage, we have
determined that there is no need to amend the final rule to address
this comment.
2. Batch and Continuous Process Vents
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed GACT control level of
90 percent for batch process vents as a reasonable approach for
pharmaceutical manufacturing area sources. Other commenters, however,
stated that the proposed control levels for both batch process vents
and continuous process vents are too high to be GACT. According to one
commenter, most State implementation plans (e.g., Ohio) contain
volatile organic compounds (VOC) reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements that set control efficiency between 81
and 90 percent. Instead of using combustion controls that are typical
at major sources, this commenter further stated that area sources most
likely use condensers, carbon adsorption systems, or other material
recovery systems, which have emission removal efficiencies in the 85 to
95 percent range. Therefore, the commenter encouraged EPA to adopt 85
percent removal as GACT for both batch process vents and continuous
process vents. According to another commenter, the control level at
existing sources should be set at 90 percent for combustion devices
other than flares and 80 percent for process condensers. This commenter
noted that a condenser at one of their facilities is permitted for 85
percent control and pointed out that the efficiency of condensers
varies with changes in ambient temperature, humidity, and the type and
concentration of HAP in the emission stream.
In addition to (or instead of) changing the required control level,
several commenters suggested that existing controls be grandfathered
because it would not be cost-effective to replace them. For example,
one commenter suggested grandfathering any control equipment currently
in compliance with State air pollution rules and permits until the next
reconstruction or replacement of the control device or 10 years after
the effective date of the rule, whichever occurs first. Another
commenter requested grandfathering provisions for control devices
achieving at least 80 percent reductions, either voluntarily or in
accordance with State rules or permits. Another commenter stated that
EPA should grandfather controls installed recently to meet RACT
requirements.
Response: Based on comments received on the control efficiency
requirements, we have reviewed and revised the GACT analysis for batch
process vents. At proposal, detailed information on the control levels
achieved at area sources was limited. Because we had limited control
information, we pointed to various control level data at major source
facilities in the source categories of interest and we assumed that
these major source controls were used at or were transferable to area
sources. Multiple commenters pointed out that the control efficiency
requirement in the proposal was too high and reflective of major
sources only and was not consistent with the typical control
efficiencies achieved for batch process vents at their area source
facilities. Multiple comments provided information that the control
efficiency at area sources was lower than the control levels achieved
at major sources. Commenters stated that control efficiency at an area
source is in the range of 81 percent to 95 percent. Commenters also
noted that area sources use condensers and recovery systems with
control efficiencies lower than 90 percent. Based on a revised cost
analysis, which considers existing control devices and efficiencies, we
have determined that the GACT control efficiency for existing batch
process vents should be 85 percent. We estimated that 13 process units
that will be subject to the emission limit for batch process vents in
the final rule are not already controlled to at least 85 percent. The
total annual costs to control the batch process vents in these process
units are estimated to be $360,000 and the cost-effectiveness is
estimated to be $8,500/ton organic HAP. We do not have sufficient
information to estimate the number of process units that have batch
process vents controlled to levels between 85 percent and 90 percent.
Based on the comments, there may be many such processes. However, if
there are as few as two such processes (i.e., total of 15 process units
controlled to less than 90 percent), the total annual costs are
estimated to be $0.43 million/yr, and the incremental cost-
effectiveness relative to the 85 percent control option is estimated to
be $13,500/ton. This cost is unreasonable; therefore, we have
determined GACT for batch process vents at existing sources is 85
percent control and not 90 percent control. We are finalizing the
proposed requirements for batch process vents at new sources (90
percent control) because the estimated cost-effectiveness relative to
uncontrolled vents is reasonable ($2,300/ton as proposed).
The commenters have provided no legal analysis in support of their
request that we grandfather existing controls as suggested. However,
given the change to the control requirements for batch vents, we
believe we have resolved the commenters' concerns with the proposed
rule and established final GACT standards that reflect the efficiencies
generally available at area sources. We have not revised the GACT
control efficiency for new batch process vents or new and existing
continuous process vents because we continue to believe that the
standards that we are finalizing are generally available and reasonable
from a cost perspective.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the MON batch process
vent definition be used to be consistent with the preamble, database,
other regulations applicable to chemical manufacturing, and general
industry practice. Another commenter requested exclusions from the
definition for the following: Opening of a safety device, heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning exhaust vents, storage tank vents,
and wastewater treatment unit vents.
One commenter asked that EPA exclude emissions from bottles and
other containers from the batch process vent definition. According to
the commenter, emissions from these containers are negligible and
controlling them was not considered in the rulemaking record, is not
cost-effective, and does not reflect GACT.
Response: As noted in the response to a comment about
subcategorization of batch process vents later in this section,
[[Page 56024]]
applicability and standards for control of batch process vents in the
final rule are consistent with the MON. Therefore, the definition for
the term ``batch process vent'' is very similar to the definition of
this term in the MON. A key feature of this definition is that it cites
examples of equipment with emissions that may be batch process vents,
and it specifies types of streams that are not batch process vents. For
example, the definition states that storage tanks, surge control
vessels, and bottoms receivers do not have batch process vents (because
they are classified separately and subject to separate standards).
Process tanks, however, do have batch process vents. Process tanks
collect material discharged from a feedstock storage tank or unit
operation within the process, discharge the material to another unit
operation or product storage tank, have emissions related to the
characteristics of the batch cycle, and do not accumulate product over
multiple batches.
Comment: Several commenters asked that 40 CFR 63.11496(a)(1) be
revised to allow alternatives to the referenced emissions calculations
procedures in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) of the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP because the referenced procedures are difficult, costly, and do
not allow the use of historical information. For example, one commenter
requested that area sources be allowed to use mass balances, other
calculation methodologies published by EPA (such as AP-42 and control
techniques guidelines), and other technically acceptable methods
(otherwise, the commenter estimated that small sources would need to
spend $5,000 to $10,000 for emission estimation software).
Two commenters encouraged EPA to allow use of the emissions
calculations procedures in 40 CFR 63.1323(b) and (e) of the Polymers
and Resins IV NESHAP. One commenter asked that calculation procedures
in the Batch Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document be allowed,
and another commenter asked that area sources be allowed to use (1)
engineering estimates (in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)) for
any calculation rather than only if the 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i)
procedures do not apply, (2) existing emissions calculations developed
for compliance with a State or Federal rule for batch process vents,
and (3) procedures to back-calculate uncontrolled emissions using inlet
HAP and VOC concentrations based on controlled outlet permit limits,
control removal capability, or knowledge of HAP and VOC concentrations
in the vent (if not indicated in permit).
Response: Emissions must be calculated to determine whether the
batch process vents are in the subcategory of greater than or equal to
uncontrolled emissions of 10,000 lbs/yr, which requires management
practices and compliance with emissions limits and control
requirements, or in the subcategory of less than 10,000 lbs/yr of
uncontrolled emissions, which requires only management practices for
the process. For the purpose of this determination at area sources, we
have concluded that all of the methods suggested by the commenters to
calculate uncontrolled emissions at area sources are acceptable. Having
choices also reduces the burden on affected sources. Therefore, the
final rule specifies that organic HAP emissions from batch process
vents may be estimated using process knowledge, engineering
assessments, or test data. The procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.1257
of subpart GGG, in the Polymers and Resins IV rule, or in the Batch ACT
are classified as engineering assessments.
Comment: One commenter stated that the GACT analysis for batch
process vents is flawed and inconsistent with rule applicability. The
commenter noted that batch process vent control requirements should be
on a process unit basis to better reflect the Agency's analysis,
industry practice, and GACT. This commenter also stated that the
control threshold of 19,000 lb/yr HAP emissions for batch process vents
is GACT, but only if EPA adopts a process unit basis.
Another commenter asked that EPA sharply limit control requirements
for process vents in order to achieve GACT. To do this, the commenter
suggested limiting source applicability to a process unit basis,
setting a threshold for control at 10,000 lbs/yr/process as in MON, and
requiring only management practices for all affected process units
below 10,000 lbs/yr/process.
Response: It appears the commenters are addressing the basis for
the proposed subcategorization of batch process vents. As we noted in
the preamble for the proposed rule, the CAA provides EPA authority to
distinguish among classes, types or sizes of sources within a source
category. For the proposal, we concluded that ``factors relating to the
type of operation (high solvent use) and size of operation (based on
the number of batches) provide a reasonable basis for
subcategorization'' of batch process vents. The commenters did not
address application of these factors directly, but they stated that
control requirements should be applied on a process unit basis. The
process unit construct is consistent with standards for batch process
vents in several MACT standards. We have considered this point in
response to comments on applicability and concluded that the factors we
considered at proposal in support of our subcategorization
determinations for the entire facility apply equally to individual
CMPUs. Furthermore, as noted above, the affected source for the final
rule is defined as the collection of specific CMPUs that use, generate,
or produce Table 1 HAP rather than the entire chemical manufacturing
operations. Therefore, for the final rule, we determined that
establishing subcategories based on individual CMPUs is also
appropriate.
For the proposal, we ``considered the relative emissions reduction
and costs for the area sources in the category in determining the
appropriate emissions level at which to subcategorize the batch process
vents.'' Specifically, we established two subcategories based on
whether the total organic HAP emissions from all batch process vents in
the entire affected source are less than 19,000 lbs/yr or equal to or
greater than 19,000 lbs/yr. One commenter stated that this threshold is
reasonable, but only if it is applied to an individual CMPU. Another
commenter suggested using a threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU.
We considered both suggestions. We do not believe 19,000 lbs/yr per
CMPU is appropriate because the 19,000 lb threshold was intended to
represent emissions from multiple CMPUs, several of which may not be
part of the affected source under the final rule because we changed the
scope of the rule to cover only those CMPUs that emit one of the
chemical manufacturing urban HAP. Based on the results of a survey of
five facilities by one commenter, area sources have, on average, two
CMPUs that use, generate, or produce Table 1 HAP. Facilities in the MON
database with urban HAP emissions also had an average of two process
units with urban HAP emissions. A threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr per
process was also used in the MON and that provides indicia of the size
of a CMPU because the MON applies to major sources of HAP. Furthermore,
as discussed in the response to another comment in this section, the
estimated costs to meet an 85 percent control requirement for existing
CMPUs with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions equal to or greater than
10,000 lbs/yr are reasonable ($8,700/ton). Therefore, we have
established two subcategories for
[[Page 56025]]
the final rule. One subcategory is for batch process vents with
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU,
and the other is for batch process vents with uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU.
Comment: Three commenters suggested that the definition of
``continuous process vent'' should be consistent with the definitions
in other rules such as the HON, MON, and/or Generic MACT (40 CFR part
63, subpart YY). One commenter requested this change because the
proposed definition does not reflect the description given in the
preamble, the supporting analyses, the rulemaking database, industry
practice, or other chemical industry regulations. Another commenter
requested that definitions for items that are exempted from the
definition of ``continuous process vent'' such as ``relief device or
valve'' and ``equipment leak'' be added to the rule.
Response: The final rule includes a definition for ``continuous
process vent'' that is consistent with the definition of ``process
vent'' in 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.107 of the HON. Terms or items in
the definition mentioned by the commenters have the same meaning given
in the HON.
Comment: One commenter recommended that small continuous process
vents (i.e., <0.1 lb/hr and <800 lbs/yr) be exempt from requirements to
calculate a TRE value because the commenter estimated that the lowest
TRE index for a HAP emission stream with these characteristics would be
30 or higher. Another commenter estimated the burden of establishing
the variables needed to calculate the TRE index to be at least 4 hours
per process vent.
Response: We have considered this issue and determined that, at an
emission rate of 0.1 lb/hr, the TRE will be well above 1.0 regardless
of other characteristics of the stream (e.g., type of HAP, HAP
concentration, and ratio of HAP to total VOC). The minimum TRE is
obtained for streams with high concentrations of organic compounds. For
streams containing common non-halogenated HAP (i.e., benzene, toluene,
and/or methanol), the lowest TRE values were determined to be between
16 and 30. As the concentration of these HAP decreases (due to
increased air and other VOC in the emission stream) the TRE increases,
typically to values above 30, as noted by the commenter. For streams
with the halogenated compound methylene chloride, the minimum and
typical TRE values were determined to be over 80. Therefore, to
minimize the burden of characterizing streams, the final standards
specify that calculation of the TRE is not required if the organic HAP
emission rate is less than 0.1 lb/hr. We did not include a
corresponding annual mass limit (i.e., 800 lbs/yr, which is
approximately equal to 0.1 lb/hr venting continuously for an entire
year) because the TRE varies with changes in the operating hours per
year. For a process that operates only a few weeks during the year,
emissions of 800 lbs could result in a TRE less than 1.0.
Comment: One commenter stated that the impacts analysis for batch
process vents is unrealistic and incomplete. According to this
commenter, a more appropriate cost evaluation would include several
batch vents per process, several processes per site, and either
multiple control devices or expensive collection systems. In addition,
the commenter stated that the cost analysis for incinerators should
include the cost of halogen scrubbers when halogenated organics (e.g.,
methylene chloride) are controlled in the incinerator. The commenter
further stated that more widespread use of combustion devices in place
of or in addition to existing scrubbers and condensers would be needed
to meet the facility-wide 90 percent reduction requirement. Even if
existing controls are grandfathered, the commenter stated all sites
with emissions in the subcategory subject to control would incur costs
to meet performance test, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
One commenter stated that the impacts analysis for continuous
process vents must include costs associated with existing controls,
including control upgrades, performance tests, monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting. Even with grandfathering of controls, all
continuous process vents with TRE <=1.0 would have to meet performance
test, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Response: We have reevaluated the costs for control of batch
process vents because the final rule applies to a smaller affected
source than the proposed rule. We have also reevaluated the costs
because the analysis in the proposed rule did not account for
facilities that are achieving some level of control, but less than the
required percent reduction. As stated above, we have also redefined
GACT as 85 percent control for existing batch process units (90 percent
for new units) that have uncontrolled organic HAP emissions equal to or
greater than 10,000 lbs/yr, and our cost analysis at proposal was based
on 90 percent control for batch process vents subject to emission
limits.
In reevaluation of the costs, we concluded that information
regarding the number of CMPU per area source, the number of CMPU with
emissions of chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, the fraction of
total organic HAP emissions from batch process vents in process units
with chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, the typical control
levels, flow rates, concentrations, operating hours, and other relevant
data are either lacking or limited. Therefore, information from the
baseline facility database from development of the MON was extrapolated
to area sources. Details of this revised analysis are in the docket,
but a summary of the analysis is set forth below.
We estimated that four facilities have uncontrolled batch process
vent emissions from one CMPU with emissions greater than 10,000 lbs/yr
per process. Another seven facilities have an estimated one or two
CMPUs per facility with batch process vent emissions (for a total of
nine CMPUs at the seven facilities) controlled to some level less than
85 percent. Information available to EPA indicates that each CMPU at
the remaining facilities that have chemical manufacturing organic urban
HAP emissions have uncontrolled batch process vent emissions less than
10,000 lbs/yr.
Based on this analysis, we estimated that the capital cost to add
controls for the 13 CMPUs at 11 facilities that do not meet the 85
percent standard is $390,000, and the annual cost is $370,000/yr. These
costs are based on the use of condensers. We do not believe
incinerators will be needed, as suggested by a commenter, because the
final standards apply to individual CMPUs (rather than facility-wide),
and the required control for existing batch process vents (85 percent)
can be averaged over all batch process vents within the CMPU. Because
the analysis is based on the use of condensers, halogen reduction
devices are not needed and have not been included in the analysis.
Costs for performance tests (or design evaluations), monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting are included in the final information
collection request, not this cost analysis. The estimated HAP
reductions are 43 tpy (versus 45 tpy at proposal). Thus, the cost-
effectiveness is $8,700/ton of organic HAP reduced, which we consider
to be reasonable for GACT.
For continuous process vents, we have not changed the cost impacts
to include control equipment upgrades. Typically, if a continuous
process vent is controlled in the absence of a regulatory driver, the
vent has relatively
[[Page 56026]]
large emissions. We anticipate that such controls will be achieving the
required 95 percent reduction requirement. Performance test,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs are estimated in the
information collection request. We have updated these costs in two
ways. First, we increased the number of affected facilities that must
conduct initial and ongoing compliance to include facilities with
controlled continuous process vents. Second, we increased the
percentage of facilities that will conduct design evaluations instead
of performance tests because the final rule allows design evaluations
for all control devices used to reduce emissions from continuous
process vents. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs are
minimal in the current information collection request because it covers
only the 3 years after the promulgation date. Most existing sources
will not be in compliance during this time because the compliance date
is 3 years after promulgation. Subsequent information collection
requests will have higher costs for these activities.
3. Metal HAP Process Vents
Comment: Several commenters recommended that EPA apply the
threshold for control on a vent basis rather than facility-wide because
the commenters interpreted the impacts analysis as applying to model
plants where all emissions were assumed to come from a single vent and
routed to a single control device. Two commenters noted that, unlike
organic HAP, particulate-containing emission streams can be ducted only
small distances. Numerous commenters recommended using the proposed 400
lbs/yr threshold for control rather than the alternative proposed
threshold of 100 lbs/yr because the incremental cost to lower the
threshold from 400 lbs/yr to 100 lbs/yr is unreasonable at an
incremental cost-effectiveness of $33,660 per ton of particulate and
$442,000 per ton of metal HAP.
Response: After careful consideration, we have decided to set the
threshold for the subcategory of metal HAP process vents that are
subject to emission limits of 95 percent reduction at the proposed
level of 400 lbs/yr, for each CMPU that emits a Table 1 metal HAP (not
the entire facility, as proposed). We selected the CMPU basis rather
than the proposed facility-wide basis for the same reasons as for
organic HAP process vents (see response above), although we estimate
that a higher percentage of facilities that emit Table 1 metal HAP
subject to this control requirement have only a single process that
emits metal HAP, which means the affected source on a CMPU basis under
the final rule may be the same as the facility-wide affected source
under the proposed rule.\9\ For example, the four largest emitters all
make electrolytic manganese dioxide. Even if these facilities make the
product in multiple processing ``lines,'' they have only a single CMPU
under the rule because a CMPU is defined based on the product produced.
Many other facilities make inorganic pigments, catalysts, or animal
feed products. These facilities likely make a number of products with
slight variations that are grouped in ``families'' that qualify as a
single CMPU under the rule. For example, these manufacturers may make a
variety of similar products that differ only in the form or purity of
the final product (such as powders versus pellets), or the animal feed
products may differ only in the specific mix of additives. But in each
case, the metal HAP feedstock is the same, the processing steps and
emissions are comparable, and the end-use or functionality of each
product is the same; therefore, the activities would all be part of a
single CMPU under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We assumed at proposal that facilities emitting Table 1
metal HAP would generally have one process so the change of affected
source from the facility to the CMPU does not require us to
reevaluate our subcategorization determination as with the change in
batch process subcategories. The factors we considered in
establishing the subcategories for metal HAP process vents at
proposal still apply under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we stated above, the final rule requires consideration of
emissions from all vents associated with a CMPU when determining if the
threshold for the 400 lbs/yr or greater subcategory is exceeded. We did
not base the threshold for the subcategory on the emissions levels from
individual vents because the CMPU may emit metal HAP from a number of
different steps such as roasting, calcining, grinding, blending,
drying, and packaging. The end result of basing the emission rate
threshold on a vent basis would be to drastically reduce the urban HAP
emission reductions under the rule.
Under the final rule, we estimate that up to 3 of the 30 facilities
with uncontrolled metal HAP emissions greater than 400 lbs/yr on a
facility basis may not be part of the subcategory when the threshold is
applied on a CMPU basis.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, as part of our
subcategorization discussion, we determined that the level of metal HAP
emissions from the vents is a function of the purpose for which the
metal HAP is present in the process. We found that emissions varied
according to whether the metal HAP were intended to be incorporated
into the product of the chemical manufacturing process and that metal
HAP emissions from those types of facilities were generally larger
where the metal was incorporated into the product. We also identified
some vents that emit larger amounts of metal HAP, even though the metal
HAP is not incorporated into the final product, and we determined that,
in those circumstances, there were likely higher metal HAP emissions
because of the large size of the facility or because the facility is
using raw materials and/or fuel with higher levels of metal HAP
impurities. We concluded that it was appropriate to base the
subcategory on the amount of emissions of metal HAP from the process
vents as a proxy for the type and size of the vent. In determining the
appropriate emissions level, we considered relative emissions
reductions and costs to the affected area sources and co-proposed
subcategorizing based on either 100 lbs/yr or 400 lbs/yr of metal HAP
emissions. We received no adverse comments on the proposed
subcategorization approach.
The preamble to the proposed rule stated that costs for both the
100 lbs/yr and 400 lbs/yr thresholds are comparable to costs for PM
control in other area source rules and for mobile sources. However, as
noted above, numerous commenters stated that the incremental costs do
not justify the 100 lbs/yr threshold and recommended selecting the 400
lbs/yr threshold. We recognize that the incremental cost for PM would
be at the high end of the range of costs for other area source rules.
The high incremental cost-effectiveness reflects a small incremental PM
reduction (40 tpy from 25 facilities), and, in regards to the basis for
the subcategory, the 400 lbs/yr level indicates a much higher emission
potential (i.e., size of facility) and we have decided that the 400
lbs/yr threshold best defines the subcategory. We received no adverse
comments on the proposed 400 lbs/yr threshold.
4. Storage Tanks
Comment: Two commenters asked that the storage tank requirements be
based on the organic HAP partial vapor pressure instead of the VOL
vapor pressure, as specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb because it
is the HAP that are subject to standards.
Response: Most rules in 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., NESHAP rules)
establish MTVP thresholds for total organic HAP because HAP is the
regulated pollutant.
[[Page 56027]]
This area source rule also regulates only HAP. As with the other rules,
we intended to base the MTVP thresholds in the proposed rule on organic
HAP, but we inadvertently neglected to override the provisions in the
referenced section of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb that specify the
threshold is based on the MTVP of the entire VOL. We have corrected
this error in the final rule. Table 5 to the final rule specifies all
applicable thresholds, and each MTVP threshold is based on the organic
HAP vapor pressure.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the definition of
``storage tank'' be changed to match the language in the preamble to
the proposed rule and/or definitions in MACT rules. Specific requested
changes included: (1) Exclude wastewater storage because wastewater
storage tanks are included under the wastewater provisions (similar to
other MACT standards); (2) exclude bottoms receivers and surge control
vessels because these vessels are typically used in the chemical
industry as process vessels; (3) exclude process tanks to be consistent
with language in the MON; (4) exclude waste tanks because they are
ancillary to the process and are typically subject to regulation under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Parts 264/265
and Subpart BB); and (5) limit the definition to tanks that store
liquid that contains any of the urban HAP listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVVVV, not all HAP.
Response: We have considered the comments and determined that using
similar definitions across the multiple standards is appropriate. The
definition in the final rule is consistent with the preamble and
definitions in the MON, the HON, and the Pharmaceutical MACT. The
definition of ``storage tank'' in the final rule excludes tanks storing
organic liquids containing HAP only as impurities. It excludes process
tanks because these tanks are subject to the process vent standards.
Wastewater tanks are excluded from the definition of ``storage tank.''
It also excludes surge control vessels and bottoms receivers because
these vessels are associated with continuous process operations; note,
however, that, as in the proposed rule, they are subject to the same
standards as storage tanks (i.e., all are subject to management
practice requirements, and controls are required for those that contain
Table 1 HAP and meet the same size and MTVP thresholds specified for
storage tanks).
Comment: Several commenters asked that the rule include alternative
storage tank control options such as vapor balancing, the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 63 subparts WW and SS, and the procedures
specified in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) (40 CFR part 65,
subpart C).
Response: Vapor balancing is a technique whereby the vapor space of
the storage tank is connected to the vapor space of a tank truck or
railcar that contains liquid that will be transferred to the storage
tank. As liquid from the tank truck or rail car is transferred to the
storage tank, vapors displaced from the storage tank are routed back to
the tank truck or railcar. This technique has been determined to
provide at least equivalent reductions in HAP emissions as the use of
an internal or external floating roof or routing displaced vapor to a
control device, provided several conditions are met: (1) The tank vent
pressure setting must be high enough to prevent breathing losses, (2)
the tank truck or railcar must be vapor tight, and (3) the tank truck
or railcar cleaning or reloading facility must also vapor balance or
route the collected vapors to a control device.
The tank vent pressure setting must be high enough to prevent
breathing losses because vapor balancing controls only the working loss
emissions that are generated by filling the tank. As discussed in the
preamble to proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG (69 FR
19161, April 10, 2000), we determined that a setting of at least 2.5
lbs per square inch gage will eliminate breathing losses from tanks.
If a system is leak-tight and very little or no air is drawn into
the system to become saturated with HAP, a source of emissions is
essentially eliminated. To ensure that the tank truck or rail car is
vapor-tight, the vapor balancing provisions in MACT rules (e.g., 40 CFR
63.1253(f) of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) require tank
trucks and railcars to have a current certification in accordance with
the U.S. Department of Transportation pressure test requirements of 49
CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars. To further
ensure the system is leak tight, the vapor balancing provisions in MACT
rules require that pressure relief devices on the storage tank and the
railcar or tank truck from which the storage tank is filled shall not
open during loading. To ensure that the applicable emission limit is
met, vapor balancing provisions in MACT rules require that the cleaning
or reloading facility shall implement vapor balancing when filling the
tank truck or railcar or the tank truck or railcar shall be connected
to a closed-vent system with a control device that reduces emissions by
the required amount. Because GACT for storage tanks in the subcategory
of larger tanks storing liquids with higher vapor pressures for which
an emission control device is required at chemical manufacturing area
sources is equivalent to the NESHAP requirements applicable to MON and
HON facilities, we determined that vapor balancing requirements of the
MON and HON also achieves HAP emission reductions at least equivalent
to the emission reductions required by the standards set forth in this
final rule. Therefore, the final rule allows vapor balancing in
accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.2470(e) of the MON as a
compliance option for storage tanks at chemical manufacturing area
sources.
Subpart WW in part 63 includes design, operational, and inspection
requirements for internal and external floating roofs that are
comparable to the GACT requirements that are based on 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. The primary difference between the two subparts is that
subpart WW allows up to 10 years to come into full compliance with seal
and deck fitting control requirements if the tank is currently equipped
with a floating roof that does not meet these requirements. In the
preamble to the final Gasoline Distribution Area Source NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB) (73 FR 1926, January 10, 2008), we determined
that the requirements in subpart WW are equivalent to the GACT
requirements that were based on subpart Kb for gasoline distribution
facilities. Since the GACT requirements for chemical manufacturing area
sources are also based on subpart Kb requirements, implementing the
subpart WW requirements at chemical manufacturing area sources also
will achieve HAP reductions that are at least equivalent to the HAP
reductions resulting from implementing the subpart Kb requirements.
Therefore, the final rule allows compliance with subpart WW as an
alternative compliance option, but without the 10 year compliance
period. All storage tanks must be in full compliance by the relevant
compliance date, as set forth in this final rule.
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS contains provisions for flare and non-
flare control devices that are comparable to the requirements for
control devices in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. For example, both
require the closed-vent system to operate with no detectable emissions
as indicated by an instrument reading less than 500 parts per million
(ppm) above background and visual inspections; subpart SS may even be
more stringent in that it requires bypass monitoring and it specifies
how frequently to conduct both instrument and visual inspections. Both
subpart Kb
[[Page 56028]]
and subpart SS require the owner or operator to demonstrate initial
compliance based on a design evaluation, although subpart SS provides
more details of what to consider in the design evaluation, and subpart
SS explicitly allows performance test results as a means to demonstrate
initial compliance. Both subpart Kb and subpart SS also require the
owner or operator to develop and operate in accordance with an
operating or monitoring plan that specifies what parameter(s) will be
monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the percent reduction
emission limit. Based on these similarities, we have determined that
compliance with subpart SS will achieve HAP emission reductions at
least equivalent to the reductions achieved by compliance with subpart
Kb. Therefore, the final rule allows compliance with subpart SS as an
alternative compliance option.
The CAR was developed as an alternative for facilities to comply
with a single rule in place of a variety of different new source
performance standards (NSPS) and NESHAP rules. We do not think it is
appropriate to allow compliance with the CAR as an alternative for area
sources subject to this final rule because 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VVVVVV is the only NESHAP that applies to most chemical manufacturing
area sources. While we are not including compliance with the CAR as an
option, the final rule includes provisions that allow an owner or
operator to comply with the most stringent requirements from both an
overlapping rule and the final subpart VVVVVV as a means of
demonstrating compliance with the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA significantly
underestimated the number of storage tank controls that will be
required and, thus, the capital cost and burden. Based on their review
of Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0008, the commenters concluded
that EPA only considered controls for tanks storing urban HAP. However,
as drafted, the proposed rule requires control of all storage vessels
at a site meeting the size and vapor pressure criteria and storing any
material containing any HAP above impurity levels.
Response: As discussed above, the final rule applies only to
storage tanks that are part of a CMPU in the affected source and that
contain a chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP. Although management
practices are required for all storage tanks that are part of an
affected CMPU, add-on controls are required only for tanks that meet
specified size and organic HAP vapor pressure thresholds. Many of these
tanks are likely already subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and
already in compliance. We believe that the number of tanks that will be
subject to the control requirement applicable to the subcategory for
large storage tanks under the final rule is consistent with the
proposed impacts analysis.
5. Wastewater
Comment: Numerous commenters requested changes to the definition of
``wastewater'' to clarify which streams are included and to limit the
scope of the term. Each of the commenters requested one or more of the
following changes: (1) Clarify that wastewater streams are water that
is discarded from the CMPU or control device (or, alternatively, the
chemical manufacturing operations), not from the affected source; (2)
specify that the water must contain PSHAP, not any HAP listed in Table
9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; (3) specify that wastewater must be at
least 50 percent water or ``primarily'' water; (4) include flow and HAP
concentration thresholds; (5) identify types of water streams that are
not considered wastewater, as in the preamble to the proposed rule and
previous MACT rules; and/or (6) make the definition consistent with the
definition of wastewater in previous MACT rules.
Response: We have considered the comments and decided that using
similar definitions across the multiple standards is appropriate. The
definition in the final rule includes most of the suggestions made by
commenters and is consistent with definitions in the MON and the HON.
However, the definition does not include a minimum water percentage. As
in the HON and other NESHAP, EPA intends to regulate as wastewater any
stream that: (1) Exits process unit equipment; and (2) meets the
concentration and flow rate criteria that are specified in the
definition because such wastewater streams have a significant potential
for emissions and should, therefore, be regulated.
Comment: One commenter noted that the solubility in water of some
PSHAP is greater than 10,000 ppmw. Therefore, the commenter requested
that decanting not be required if no separable organic phase is present
in the wastewater stream.
Response: Based on the comments and our additional analysis, we
have determined it is appropriate to redefine the subcategories of
wastewater. Specifically, we are amending the subcategories to account
for wastewater that has 10,000 ppmw or greater concentration of PSHAP
but does not have a water phase and an organic phase. In the proposed
rule, we determined that removal of the organic layer by gravity
separation was GACT, but gravity separation is not feasible for
wastewater that does not contain separate organic and water phases.
Under the final rule, we are establishing one subcategory based on both
the PSHAP concentration of 10,000 ppmw or greater and the presence of a
separate organic phase. Wastewater with a PSHAP concentration of 10,000
ppmw or greater, but without a separate organic phase, and wastewater
with a PSHAP concentration of less than 10,000 ppmw represent the other
subcategory.
As in the proposed rule, we have determined that GACT is removal of
a separate organic layer by gravity separation when the PSHAP
concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw and there is a separate organic
phase. The treatment requirements in the final rule for both the
organic and wastewater phases are consistent with the requirement set
forth in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several commenters requested additional compliance options
for streams that contain more than 10,000 ppmw PSHAP, particularly for
wastewater that is collected for shipment offsite for treatment or
disposal. For example, one commenter recommended that decanting be
required only when the aqueous phase will be sent to on-site or offsite
treatment, but facilities should not have to separate a free organic
phase from wastewater that is managed in recycle, energy use, or
hazardous disposal operations that either have integral organic phase
separation or do not require such separation before recycle, energy
use, or disposal. Another commenter stated that wastewater sent to a
permitted wastewater treatment facility (such as a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW)) should be exempt. Another commenter stated that
separation should not be required for wastewater collected for shipment
offsite to be treated by a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste incinerator,
a POTW, or oil recycling operations. According to one commenter, the
rule should allow both direct piping to biological treatment and
combustion of the entire stream without separating out the water phase,
and another commenter added that combustion should be allowed for
streams that contain small amounts of water relative to the organic
phase. One commenter also noted that other separation techniques, such
as stripping or distillation, may be more effective than
[[Page 56029]]
decanting, and some oil-water separators do not rely on the principle
of gravity.
Response: The final rule contains provisions for alternative
control of organic HAP from streams with >10,000 ppmw PSHAP. The final
rule allows: (1) Several separation techniques; (2) hard piping to an
on-site hazardous waste treatment unit; or (3) shipment offsite for any
similar treatment. These compliance options are included in Table 6 of
the final rule and provide at least equivalent emission reductions. The
other alternatives cited by the commenters may not provide at least
equivalent emission reductions as the final rule and, therefore, we are
not including them in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed requirements for
wastewater streams that contain >10,000 ppmw of PSHAP are not GACT
because the actual costs are significantly higher than EPA estimated.
According to the commenter, EPA's impacts analysis omitted the cost to
determine the partially soluble HAP concentration in each wastewater
stream, which ranged from 10 to 250 streams per facility at facilities
the commenter surveyed.
Response: In the burden analysis for the information collection
requirements for the proposed rule, we estimated compliance
demonstration costs assuming that all area sources with organic urban
HAP would have wastewater. We also assumed that a typical area source
would spend 20 hours characterizing the wastewater (e.g., based on
knowledge of the wastewater), and that 50 percent of the facilities
would conduct sampling and analysis for an average of 10 streams. The
cost of analysis was assumed to be $435. The total cost was estimated
to be $169,400 per year for characterizing the streams according to
process knowledge and $210,400 per year for sampling and analysis.
For the final burden estimate, we believe the number of streams
will be lower than the 10 estimated at proposal because only those
wastewater streams that are discarded from a CMPU that uses, generates,
or produces chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP are part of the
affected source for the final standards. According to one commenter,
the average number of points of determination for five surveyed
facilities is approximately two wastewater streams per process. We are
estimating two CMPUs per facility and 2 points of determination per
CMPU for a total of four process streams per facility.
The final rule allows PSHAP concentration to be determined based on
either process knowledge or sampling and analysis. We assumed that 50
percent of facilities would perform sampling and analysis and the other
50 percent would rely on process knowledge. For the process knowledge
approach, we assumed 20 hours of in-house labor per facility at a total
cost of $1,750, as in the proposed analysis. However, we corrected an
error in the proposed analysis and applied this cost to only 50 percent
of the facilities rather than all of them for the final rule. For the
sampling and analysis approach, we assumed $435 per sample for analysis
and 20 hours of time for a contractor ($125 per hour labor rate) to
collect one sample per wastewater stream per facility; thus, the total
cost of this approach is estimated to be $4,240 per year per facility.
We assumed one sample per stream because one sample would be sufficient
to meet the compliance requirements. The estimate of 20 hours at $125
per hour is based on a commenter's estimate for retrieving four
samples. One commenter noted that the cost of triplicate analysis is
approximately $885. Assuming that the average cost per sample is not
based on the number of samples, the cost on a per sample basis would be
$295. We retained the $435 sampling cost used at proposal for
consistency and to be somewhat conservative in our estimate.
The total respondent burden for the final wastewater standards was
estimated to be $84,700 per year for characterizing the streams
according to process knowledge and $205,100 per year for sampling and
analysis, which we believe is reasonable. The overall respondent burden
for wastewater streams has decreased by $90,000 from proposal to the
final standards.
Comment: According to several commenters, decanting is not
justified for small streams, given the expense of the equipment and the
small potential benefit. For example, one commenter indicated the
capital and operating cost for a facility could exceed $100,000 while
achieving only minimal emissions reductions because of low throughput
or low volatility of the HAP. Another commenter requested that streams
containing up to 200 lbs/yr of PSHAP be excluded from the decanting
requirement.
One commenter stated that small streams that contact only highly
insoluble materials and streams that are excluded from the definition
of wastewater in other rules should not be subject to the treatment
requirement because such streams are not currently treated, the cost
and burden to treat such streams were not considered in the rulemaking
record and, therefore, treatment for all streams cannot be GACT.
Response: The revised definition of wastewater clarifies the types
of water discharges that are wastewater. With the changes to the final
rule for wastewater systems, we do not agree that our cost estimates
are in error and that there will be additional costs incurred to meet
the treatment requirements in the final rule.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed maintenance
wastewater requirements and stated that the wastewater requirements
should be limited to process wastewater. One commenter stated that the
proposed requirement to decant the organic phase from maintenance
wastewater is particularly problematic because maintenance wastewater
is often generated in small volumes and collected in various vessels
prior to on-site or offsite energy recovery, reuse, or recycling. The
maintenance wastewater is not discharged directly into an individual
drain system. The commenter pointed out that decanting these streams
first would add a second transfer step, which would increase the
emissions potential relative to the current operating practice.
Response: By adding the compliance options discussed above, we have
addressed industry concerns regarding wastewater generated in small
quantities, wastewater that is reused or recycled, and wastewater
shipped offsite. For example, instead of requiring only decanting, the
final rule allows an owner or operator the alternative to collect a
small wastewater stream and send it to an offsite hazardous waste
treatment facility. This option applies to maintenance wastewater as
well as to process wastewater. Considering the requirements of the
final rule, we see no reason to distinguish between a process
wastewater stream and a maintenance wastewater stream.
6. Transfer Operations
Comment: One commenter stated that the data and analysis supporting
the proposed rule demonstrate that the controls currently in place at
chemical manufacturing area sources are already GACT and that no
additional requirements are justified. The commenter indicated the rule
should be revised to incorporate criteria that reflect the submerged
fill or equivalent controls currently in place and should impose no
additional requirements. This commenter also stated the management
practice requirements that are based on requirements for transfer at
gasoline distribution facilities should be deleted. According to the
commenter, these requirements generally are not
[[Page 56030]]
GACT (because they impose significant cost but achieve no emission
reduction), are unclear, and conflict with other requirements and
regulations. The commenter provided labor hour estimates for the
various management practice tasks and estimated that the total cost
would be more than 10 times higher than EPA estimated.
Response: As discussed in section III of this preamble, the
management practice requirements have been revised in the final rule to
better reflect what is generally available for these categories. Upon
review of the comments, we recognized that the proposed management
practice requirements were redundant for CMPU with both batch and
continuous process vents because the proposed requirements for both
emission points applied to all process equipment. In this final rule,
the various proposed management practices for process vents, equipment
leaks, transfer operations, and storage tanks were consolidated and
simplified into one comprehensive set of management practices that are
applicable to each affected CMPU. The comprehensive management
practices in the final rule include requirements to equip each vessel
with a cover or lid that must be in place when the vessel contains HAP
(except for material addition and sampling) and to conduct sensory
inspections for leaks throughout each affected CMPU on a quarterly
basis. The proposed inspections for equipment leaks are included
without change in the final management practice requirements, but the
final rule also requires comparable inspections for leaks from process
equipment in a CMPU (e.g., reactors, distillation units, process tanks)
and for storage tanks that are part of a CMPU and that store liquid
that contains any Table 1 organic urban HAP.
For transfer operations, we retained in the final rule the
requirement to use submerged/bottom filling or other controls for all
loading of tank trucks and railcars (excluding reactive and resinous
materials). As the commenter noted, the combination of these loading
procedures and process unit-wide management practices is consistent
with operation at most area sources and has been determined to be GACT,
unlike the proposed requirements that were based on the requirements in
the gasoline distribution rule. Therefore, the final standards
generally do not impose many additional requirements except for the few
facilities that may not already be implementing these procedures.
Although emissions from transfer operations are less than emissions
from other emission points at chemical manufacturing area sources, we
believe that the reason for this is, in part, that most facilities are
implementing submerged loading or other control techniques. The
standards ensure that these practices continue.
Comment: Three commenters requested that the submerged (and bottom)
fill requirement be deleted for transfer of resins because of
operational and safety concerns. One commenter noted that resins can
stratify and some of the layers formed might be flammable. Another
commenter noted that submerged fill may be dangerous for certain resins
and polymers, particularly those that contain styrene. The third
commenter noted that the Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart OOO) has no requirements for transfer of resins because EPA
determined that the resins contain insignificant quantities of HAP and
are not cost-effective to regulate. One commenter also requested an
exemption from the submerged/bottom loading requirement for loading of
all reactive, viscous, and sticky materials due to safety concerns, the
fact that such procedures are not general industry practice, and
because past efforts have shown the liquids stick and sometimes harden
in the fill pipe, resulting in a significant expense to replace the
fill pipe and dispose of the hardened material as a RCRA hazardous
waste.
Response: In response to commenters concerns, we reevaluated types
of liquid transfers to determine GACT for transfers of the types of
materials described by the commenters. We determined that submerged
loading is not a generally available industry practice for transferring
reactive or resinous materials for the reasons articulated by the
commenters. To address this issue, the final rule specifies that
submerged or bottom loading is not required for reactive or resinous
material. However, transfer operations associated with these materials
must comply with the other management practices.
7. Heat Exchange Systems
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should regulate cooling
towers where process fluid contains not less than 5- or 10-percent HAP
to keep applicability consistent with historic LDAR applicability
criteria and to minimize burden. Other commenters stated only re-
circulating cooling towers serving process heat exchangers containing 5
percent by weight organic HAP that could leak into the water should be
subject to cooling tower requirements.
Two commenters requested EPA clarify whether ``once-through''
cooling systems, comfort cooling towers, or other non-process cooling
towers are excluded. These commenters suggested that exemptions in the
HON under 40 CFR 63.104(a) be included in the rule, with some
modifications, and that the exemptions apply to all cooling towers, not
only those with >8,000 gal/min circulation rates.
Response: Although the proposed rule used the term ``cooling
tower'' systems, we intended it to mean ``heat exchange'' systems as is
consistent with the HON. Furthermore, the language in item 5.b of Table
2 to the proposed rule required affected sources to comply with the
requirements contained in 40 CFR 63.104(a)(1) through (6) of the HON.
That provision listed systems that were not subject to the proposed
rule (i.e., systems with cooling water side pressure that is at least
35 kPa greater than the process side, systems with intervening fluids
with <5 weight percent total HAP, systems used to cool process fluids
containing <5 weight percent HAP [as specified in Table 4 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart F for recirculating systems, and as specified in Table
9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for once-through systems], and once-
through systems that meet specified National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit requirements).
Therefore, the final standards for heat exchange systems apply to
all heat exchange systems that are part of the affected source and that
do not meet conditions in 40 CFR 63.104(a) of the HON. The heat
exchange systems covered by the final rule are also exactly the same as
the cooling tower systems we intended to cover under the proposal and
on which our cost and emission reduction estimates were based.
While a commenter noted that once-through systems are exempted in
the HON, it should be noted that the HON covers both recirculating and
once-through heat exchange systems under the 40 CFR 63.104 heat
exchange system requirements. Consistent with the proposal, the final
rule applies to once-through cooling waters in accordance with 40 CFR
63.104(a).
We believe that control of once-through heat exchanger cooling
systems is appropriate for several reasons. Emissions of volatile HAP
occur readily from open water sources. While the stripping process may
not be as fast as in a cooling tower, once-through cooling water will
have a much longer exposure to the atmosphere than a system with a
cooling tower. While the emissions may occur over a longer time period,
all
[[Page 56031]]
available scientific evidence and fate modeling studies of open water
systems leads us to conclude that essentially all volatile HAP will be
released into the atmosphere. Therefore, we see no reason why HAP leaks
from heat exchange systems into once-through cooling water should be
treated any differently than HAP leaks from heat exchange systems that
have cooling towers.
For the final rule, we clarify that heat exchange systems are part
of the affected source and specifically address once-through cooling
systems. We have included a definition of ``heat exchange system'' as
in the HON. These changes clarify the applicable requirements and also
clarify that comfort cooling towers and any other non-process cooling
towers are not subject to standards.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the management practice
requirement for systems with <8,000 gal/min circulation rate should be
clarified. These commenters requested that area sources be allowed to
sample to determine if indications of a leak identified by an
inspection actually reflect a leak that is large enough to justify a
costly repair or a process shutdown. Because Sec. 63.104(b) of the HON
defines a leak as 1 ppm, and this level was also used in the impacts
analysis for the proposed standards, the commenters requested that area
sources be allowed to determine if this condition is met before being
required to repair after an inspection reveals indications of a leak.
Response: The final rule specifies that the owner or operator must
either eliminate indications of a potential leak or demonstrate that
the HAP concentration in the cooling water does not constitute a leak,
as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6). If the concentration threshold is
not met, the system is assumed not to be leaking, and no other
requirements apply for that inspection cycle. We believe this is
appropriate because HAP may be inadvertently introduced to the heat
exchange system in ways other than through a leak. Requiring the
facility to cease operations based on minimal HAP present is not GACT
as it would create considerable cost with virtually no HAP reductions.
In addition, an alternative has been added for small heat exchange
systems to allow compliance with the same requirements that apply to
large heat exchange systems instead of the requirements that would
otherwise apply to the small heat exchange system.
Comment: One commenter stated the costs estimated for the cooling
tower requirements are significantly underestimated and suggested
several specific revisions to the cost analysis involving the number of
cooling towers per site, number of samples to be collected, operator
sampling time, and sample analysis costs. Specifically, commenters
suggested that EPA should: Assume two cooling towers per site; assume
four samples per quarter for Options 2 and 3 because many cooling
towers have several return headers that each must be monitored and
because both inlet and outlet monitoring will be required for many
cooling towers to account for organic cooling tower additives, heavy
HAP and soluble HAP which build up in the system; operator sampling
time should be 1 hour under Options 2 and 3; sampling of total
hydrocarbons or surrogate species costs $200 to $400 per sample under
Option 2; sampling for HAP speciation requires multiple samples or gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy for $300 to $800 per analysis; HON
procedures require triplicate samples; and add cost associated with
check samples and identifying the source of the leak.
Response: We have made several revisions to the costs based on
comments and to correct omissions at proposal. While commenters
suggested that there are two cooling towers at each facility, after
limiting the affected source to CMPUs and associated heat exchange
systems and wastewater systems that use, produce, or generate chemical
manufacturing urban HAP, it is likely that area sources have one
cooling tower (or heat exchange system) in the affected source. Option
1 in both the proposed and final analyses is a quarterly sensory
inspection and leak repair program, and Option 2 consists of the
requirements for surrogate monitoring and leak repair in 40 CFR
63.104(c) of the HON. As discussed in section III.B.2.f of this
preamble, the Option 1 requirements were determined to be GACT for
small heat exchange systems, and the Option 2 requirements were
determined to be GACT for large heat exchange systems.
For the final Option 2 cost analysis, we increased the number of
quarterly samples as suggested by one commenter, i.e., increased the
number to be taken from one sample to three samples, given that some
operators will monitor the heat exchange exit stream before the outlet
cooling water is manifolded with other streams. We included a 1-hour
sampling time for Option 2, as suggested by a commenter. We also
revised the recordkeeping time to 1 hour per quarter for both Options 1
and 2 because the type and amount of information to be recorded are
comparable under the two options. We inadvertently omitted the labor
costs to conduct the quarterly sensory inspections for Option 1 at
proposal and have included those cost estimates in the final analysis.
We did not incorporate other suggested changes from the commenters
in the final impacts analysis. One suggestion was to incorporate costs
for identifying the specific source of the leak. However, with the
changes noted above regarding the monitoring of individual heat
exchangers, i.e., conducting three samples per quarterly event at heat
exchanger exits rather than one sample at a manifolded location, we
assumed that no additional cost would be associated with finding the
specific leaking heat exchanger because the leak will be easier to
locate based on HAP concentrations in the samples taken at different
locations. Other suggested changes were to include costs for ``water
sampling,'' monitoring both inlet and outlet locations, and conducting
sampling in triplicate. We did not include costs for these activities
because they are not required under either Option 1 or Option 2. An
owner or operator may elect to conduct monitoring in accordance with 40
CFR 63.104(b) of the HON, which does require sampling at the inlet and
outlet of each heat exchange system and in triplicate, but we did not
include costs for compliance with these procedures because we do not
expect many facilities to choose to comply with this option. Similarly,
facilities that choose to conduct water sampling to meet the surrogate
indicator monitoring under Option 2 could incur additional lab analysis
costs and would perhaps choose to take two or three samples; however it
is not required by the rule.
8. Equipment Leaks
Comment: One commenter requested that the rule allow use of Method
21 as an option to confirm that AVO indication of a leak is or is not
actually a leak, i.e., less than 10,000 ppmv, as is consistent with
HON. Another commenter asked that Method 21 inspections be allowed in
lieu of sensory inspections.
Response: The final rule allows Method 21 inspections in lieu of
sensory inspections. This alternative is equivalent to the method in
the proposed rule at detecting organic HAP leaks. The leak definition
in the final rule for Method 21 is set at 500 ppmv, the most stringent
level used in any Federal LDAR program.
D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations
Comment: Three commenters requested that sources be allowed to
demonstrate initial compliance using
[[Page 56032]]
design evaluations (or a combination of design evaluation, engineering
calculation, or information from the equipment supplier) as an
alternative to performance testing for any control device and any type
of HAP, not just under the conditions where it is already allowed in
the MON and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. One commenter also stated that
sources should be allowed to designate vents as having a TRE <1.0 and
allow engineering estimates as an alternative to testing in all cases
(rather than requiring testing when estimating procedures result in a
TRE between 1.0 and 4.0). These commenters stated that this would be a
way to reduce burden and costs while having little impact on emissions
reductions, and they pointed out that, in some cases, testing is
impossible (e.g., at the inlet to sintered metal filters that are used
to control particulate emissions from storage bins). One commenter
added that some problems that area sources with limited testing
experience are likely to encounter include the need to modify sampling
methods, the lack of inlet sampling ports and the lack of a location
that will allow ports to meet EPA Method 1 location requirements, and
difficulty sampling inlet streams due to toxicity or flammability of
the gas.
Response: Performance tests provide the greatest assurance that
required control levels are being achieved. However, they can be costly
(>$20,000 per test). Design evaluations based on engineering principles
are allowed in the MON and other MACT rules for small control devices
primarily due to cost considerations and the limited emission potential
from small control devices. Considering the cost of testing and the
fact that overall emissions from area sources are much lower than
emissions from major sources, we do not think a requirement for testing
at area sources is justified. Therefore, the final rule specifies that
design evaluations may be used to demonstrate initial compliance with
any organic HAP emission limits, hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emission limits for scrubbers associated with combustion controls for
halogenated vent streams, and metal HAP emission limits.
The final rule also does not require compliance with the referenced
requirements in Sec. 63.115(d)(1)(ii) that specify the owner or
operator must either perform measurements to verify that the TRE
determined using an engineering assessment is really between 1 and 4 or
consider the TRE to be <1; thus, an engineering assessment is
sufficient to determine the TRE in this range.
E. Monitoring Requirements
Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to specify that the proposed
PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 do not apply to chemical
manufacturing area sources because the burden and cost of these
requirements is significant. Another commenter stated that the costs
for complying with the proposed PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance
Procedure 4 need to be considered in the impacts analysis if they are
to apply to chemical manufacturing area sources. One commenter noted
that sophisticated instrumentation systems, centralized computer data
systems, and on-site instrumentation specialists would be needed to
comply with the proposed PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4
requirements.
Response: PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 have not been
finalized. As one commenter pointed out, these requirements go beyond
existing MACT and NSPS standards, area sources in the categories being
regulated today do not generally comply with these procedures, and the
costs to comply with PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 are
not reasonable. For these reasons, PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance
Procedure 4 do not apply to affected sources under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Comment: Two commenters stated that imposing almost all 40 CFR part
63 General Provisions is overly burdensome and unjustified, because
area sources have limited technical expertise and staff resources and
small emission potential compared to major sources. For example, one
commenter indicated that the ``negative'' records required by 40 CFR
63.1(b)(3) and 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) should be indicated as ``No'' in
Table 4; the performance testing and monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS should supersede 40 CFR 63.7 and 40 CFR 63.8; and
only the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, not the 40 CFR part 60
General Provisions, should apply.
Response: In consideration of these comments, we have reviewed the
General Provisions and made a few minor changes to Table 9 of the final
rule with respect to recordkeeping and reporting requirements
(Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV). We determined
that 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) does not apply because the rule references the
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for certain control device
compliance requirements, and 40 CFR 63.997(c)(1) of subpart SS contains
performance testing schedule requirements that are comparable, although
slightly more descriptive, than the schedule requirements in 40 CFR
63.7(a)(2). To ensure that area sources do not have to comply with PS-
17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 when they are finalized, we
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply. We also specify in
Table 9 that references to SSM in the General Provisions requirements
for recordkeeping and reporting do not apply. Finally, we determined
that the notification of changes to information already provided that
is required by 40 CFR 63.9(j) does not apply because it is redundant
with 40 CFR 63.11501(d)(4) of the final rule, which specifies that
notifications of process changes that affect a compliance
determination, result in a new compliance determination, or change the
method of compliance must be reported in the semi-annual compliance
reports.
In addition to the changes in Table 9, we also added a statement in
40 CFR 63.11501(a) of the final rule to clarify that an affected source
must only comply with those Part 63 General Provisions as specified in
40 CFR Table 9. The General Provisions in other Parts, such as Part 60,
do not apply except to the extent that a source is subject to an
overlapping requirement, and that requirement calls for compliance with
the General Provisions of another part.
G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
(SSM)
Comment: Several commenters suggested changes to simplify and
reduce the burden of SSM requirements. One commenter stated that no
special reporting should be required after an SSM event if the SSM plan
was followed, and sources should not have to submit revised plans if
the plan is modified in a timely fashion. One commenter recommended
that 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV explicitly state that emission
limits and control requirements do not apply during SSM periods. Three
commenters stated that facilities subject only to management practice
requirements should not be required to develop an SSM plan because no
purpose is served by requiring an SSM plan for anything that does not
impact required controls.
One commenter stated EPA should simplify SSM reporting requirements
by: (1) Waiving immediate reporting as required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5);
(2) requiring the information required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to be
recorded and maintained onsite and submitted in the periodic report;
(3) requiring SSM
[[Page 56033]]
reporting only if excess emissions occurred and they did not follow
their SSM plan; and (4) allowing SSM reporting to be consolidated with
semiannual compliance reports.
One commenter stated that Table 4 should indicate that the
immediate reporting requirements and separate SSM reports required in
40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) do not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV, and that failure to follow the SSM plan during an event where
there are excess emissions should be reported in the deviation report.
This commenter also requested that EPA use time and labor rate
assumptions provided by the commenter in revised burden estimates
related to SSM plans.
This same commenter stated that EPA developed the emission
limitations and work practices in the proposed rule without considering
any emission data during SSM of control or process equipment. As such,
the EPA cannot legally impose the emission limitations required during
normal operations on sources during periods of SSM. The commenter
points out that EPA may set a standard based on GACT or management
practices, and management practices is the most appropriate requirement
for SSM. The commenter suggests provisions of the HON be used as a
model for SSM management practices. The commenter also requested that
EPA clarify that area sources may take all actions necessary to ensure
that sources operate safely at all times, including during SSM events,
by including language similar to that in the MON in regards to opening
a safety device.
Another commenter also submitted comments in response to the court
decision on SSM issues. The commenter submitted additional compliance
options that would show compliance at all times, including periods of
SSM because, according to the commenter, these periods are not steady
state conditions and, therefore, operating parameter limits determined
through performance testing or engineering evaluations would not be
indicative of those periods. The commenter stated that SSM provisions
should still be included in the final rulemaking for area sources.
Alternatives suggested by the commenter include demonstration of
compliance of emission limit using a long term rolling average; conduct
performance testing for periods of startup and shutdown; allow use of
storage tank when control device is not operational if tank is not
filled and has a tight fitting cover; run no new batches until
malfunction is over; and ensure that the control device is at normal
operating conditions before the process is started.
Response: Table 9 to the final rule (Table 4 to the proposed rule)
contains references to the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions and lists
the applicability of the General Provisions to the sources subject to
the rule. As explained above, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, the
Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1). In light of this court
decision, we revised Table 9 to state that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)
do not apply. Table 9 also states that the requirements for SSM plans
and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) do not apply.
The final emission standards summarized in section IV above apply at
all times. As noted in sections III and IV above, we are establishing a
separate emission standard for periods of startup and shutdown for
continuous process vents for the nine source categories at issue here,
because these periods are characterized by activities, such as the
filling of vessels and the inerting of vessels, and these activities
generally result in significantly different emissions than normal
operations. See Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1027 (recognizing that the CAA
does not require EPA to set a single emission standard under CAA
section 112(d) that applies during all operating periods).
Some commenters complain that EPA failed to consider emissions data
during startup and shutdown, and that EPA should set different
standards for these periods. EPA is limited to the emissions
information before it, which, of course, includes any information
provided by the commenters. In this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of
the emissions information before it, including that provided by
commenters, and concluded that only continuous vents presented a
situation where a separate standard during startup and shutdown was
appropriate. Although EPA recognizes that startup and shutdown events
associated with a continuous process can impact the quantity of
wastewater sent to the wastewater system, these events do not warrant a
separate standard for wastewater systems. The final GACT standards for
wastewater systems appropriately control HAP emissions, and the
commenters have not provided any data or other information that would
justify a separate standard for wastewater systems. Contrary to the
commenters' assertion, for batch processing, startup and shutdown are
considered part of normal operations. Storage tanks, heat exchange
systems, and transfer operations also do not undergo startup and
shutdown activities.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established CAA section
112(d) compliant standards in this rule that apply continuously. The
standards, as described above, apply at all times. In establishing the
standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown
periods and has established different standards for such periods where
appropriate. Periods of start-up, normal operations, and shut-down are
all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Batch
processes start up and shutdown as part of their routine process and
continuous process operations undergo startups and shutdowns for a
variety of reasons, including changes in product demand or product
line, and upgrading of equipment. By contrast, a malfunction is defined
as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * * '' 40 CFR 63.2.
EPA has properly accounted for different periods of operation in
establishing the standards in this rule. EPA does not view malfunctions
as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur
at such times do not need to be factored into development of CAA
section 112(d) standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times.
Thus, EPA is not setting separate standards for malfunctions in this
rule, as the commenters requested.
Further, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take into account
malfunctions in setting CAA section 112(d) standards. Because, by
definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, it would be
difficult to set a standard that would account for the myriad of
different emissions that could occur during malfunctions. In addition,
the type, frequency, and duration of the malfunctions may differ
significantly between sources. Furthermore, emissions during
malfunctions can substantially exceed the level of emissions during
start-up, shut-down, and normal operations. Finally, setting an
emissions standard that accounts for all different types of
malfunctions could allow a source to emit excessive quantities of
uncontrolled pollution.
Commenters raised a concern that certain malfunctions necessitate
the opening of a safety device to avoid damage to equipment or injury
to personnel working at the site. EPA shares the commenters' concerns
that plants must be operated safely and that
[[Page 56034]]
plant operators should run their facilities in a safe manner.
H. Title V Permitting
As discussed above in section III.F, we are not finalizing the
exemption from title V requirements for those sources that became area
sources by installing emission controls. We maintain, as explained
below in this response to significant comments, that we properly
applied the test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome on the other sources subject to this NESHAP and we are
finalizing that exemption in this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter argued that the Agency's proposal to exempt
the nine area source categories from title V requirements is unlawful
and arbitrary. The commenter states that section 502(a) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to exempt area source categories from title V permitting
requirements if the Administrator finds that compliance with such
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661a(a). The commenter notes that EPA
did not claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible
for any of the source categories it proposes to exempt, but that EPA
instead relied entirely on its claim that title V would be
``unnecessarily burdensome.''
Response: We have reconsidered our proposed exemption for major
sources that installed controls to become area sources after 1990.
Based on our additional review of the source categories since proposal,
we conclude that exemption for these synthetic area sources is not
appropriate as discussed above in section III.F. We are finalizing the
exemption for synthetic area sources that took operational limits and
for natural minor sources.
Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:
* * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter,
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major
source from such regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a).
The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area)
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for
exempting area sources from title V.
To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the
word ``and,'' in place of ``or.''
Comment: One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V,
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its
requirements as necessary, as a general rule. The commenter maintained
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why,
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above,
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source
category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19,
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source
categories.
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category, and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of CAA section
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment. See 70 FR 75326,
December 19, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-factor
balancing test and determining that title V requirements would be
unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at issue
here, we examined whether the exemption from title V would adversely
affect public health, welfare, and the environment, and found that
it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
[[Page 56035]]
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502,
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502.
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the October 6, 2008 proposed rule
for the categories at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-
factor balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source
categories for which we proposed title V exemptions. Had we sought to
re-open our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in
CAA section 502 and modify it from what was articulated in the
Exemption Rule, we would have stated so in the October 6, 2008,
proposed rule and solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which
we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter's attempt to create
a new test for determining what constitutes ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that issue falls outside the
purview of this rulemaking.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in the Exemption Rule, it should have
commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the
Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we
received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the
rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we believe that the commenter's position that ``EPA
must show * * * that the ``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary'' is
unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the
applicability of title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat
area sources differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the
EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title
V at her discretion. There are several instances throughout the CAA
where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major
sources, as it did in CAA section 502. In addition, it is worth noting
that, although the commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and attempts to create
a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V are
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area source category, the commenter
does not explain why EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance
with law. We maintain that our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, as set forth in the
Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting
information for the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a
State and local level. The commenter stated that Congress did not think
that enforcement by States or other government entities was enough; if
it had, Congress would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions,
and the legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress
viewed citizens' access to information and ability to enforce CAA
requirements as highly important both as an individual right and as a
crucial means to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a
source does not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--
depending on the laws, regulations, and practices of the State in which
the source operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant
information about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter
stated that, likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to
bring enforcement actions. The commenter continued that EPA does not
claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be
required--that citizens would have the same ability to obtain
compliance and emissions information about sources in the categories it
proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter also said
that, likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with
substantial evidence -- that citizens would have the same enforcement
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes
plainly eliminate benefits that Congress thought necessary. The
commenter claimed that, to justify its exemptions, EPA would have to
show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress
intended title V to confer--benefits which the commenter argues are
eliminated by the exemptions--are for some reason unnecessary with
respect to the categories it proposes to exempt. The commenter
concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge these benefits of title V,
far less explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason
alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.
Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome''
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome''
in CAA section 502. In any event, EPA interpretation is reasonable.
Furthermore, the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in
EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific
facts of the sources we are exempting, nor do the comments provide a
basis for the Agency to reconsider the exemption as we are finalizing
it.
EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the facts of the nine
source categories at issue in this rule, and the commenter has not
identified any flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor test to the
nine area source categories at issue here.
Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered
implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-
factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's
unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on
title V permits. See 70 FR 75326.
In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the
CAA. As stated in
[[Page 56036]]
the proposal, we believe that state-delegated programs are sufficient
to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that EPA retains authority to
enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. 73 FR 58373. We also indicated that
States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach,
and education programs to assist sources, and that these additional
programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with
this NESHAP. 73 FR 58373. The commenter does not challenge the
conclusion that there are adequate State and Federal programs in place
to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the
commenter provides an unsubstantiated assertion that information about
compliance by the area sources with these NESHAP will not be as
accessible to the public as information provided to a State pursuant to
title V. In fact, the commenter does not provide any information that
States will treat information submitted under these NESHAP differently
than information submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, in
evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA concluded
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no information
to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V actually
impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of the
NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated
in determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome. As explained above, we considered that factor together with
the other factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize
the proposed exemptions for natural area sources and synthetic area
sources that took operational limits in the source categories at issue
in this rule, but we are not finalizing the title V exemption for
sources that became synthetic area sources through the use of add-on
controls for the reasons set forth above in section III.F.
Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond
those required by the regulations for each category. The commenter said
that, in its proposal, EPA proposed to require ``management practices,
which are practices that are currently used at most facilities, for
most subcategories (73 FR 58372).'' The commenter further states that
``EPA argues that its proposed standard, including these practices,
`provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that will assure
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule.' '' Id. The
commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions and that the
Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed
monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the NESHAP for the
exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this reason, as well,
its claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is
arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary
and capricious.
Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor
test to determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source
categories. See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor
that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which
those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See
70 FR 75323.
The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard,
including these practices, `provides monitoring in the form of
recordkeeping that will assure compliance with the requirements of the
proposed rule.' '' The commenter has taken a phrase from the preamble
out of context to imply that EPA has only required monitoring in the
form of recordkeeping. In the proposal, we stated:
The proposed rule requires implementation of certain management
practices, which are practices that are currently used at most
facilities, for most subcategories, and add on controls and other
requirements, in addition to management practices for other
subcategories of sources. The proposed rule requires direct
monitoring of emissions or control device parameters, both
continuous and periodic, recordkeeping that also may serve as
monitoring, and deviation and other semi-annual reporting to assure
compliance with these requirements.
The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V
exemption. For the management practices, this proposed standard
provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by
means other than recordkeeping for the management practices is not
practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the
management practices are followed. The proposed rule requires the
owner or operator to record the date and results of inspections, as
well as any actions taken in response to findings of the
inspections. The records are required to be maintained as
checklists, logbooks and/or inspection forms. The rule also requires
emission limit requirements for some subcategories. Monitoring of
control device or recovery device operating parameters using CPMS or
periodic monitoring is required to assure compliance with these
emission limits.
See 73 FR 58372.
We nowhere state or imply that the only monitoring required for the
rule is in the form of recordkeeping. As the above excerpt states, we
required continuous and periodic direct monitoring of emission control
devices and recovery devices when the rule requires the installation of
such controls in addition to the recordkeeping that serves as
monitoring for the management practices. The commenter does not provide
any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the proposed
monitoring requirements are sufficient to assure compliance with the
standards in the rule.
Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V monitoring
requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring
requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not.
We believe that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance for those
sources we are exempting.
For the reasons described above and in the proposed rule, the first
factor supports an exemption. Assuming, for arguments sake, that the
first factor alone cannot support the exemption, the four-factor
balancing test requires EPA to examine the factors, in combination, and
determine whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of
exemption. See 70 FR 75326. As explained above, we determined that the
factors, weighed together, support title V exemption for the natural
area sources and synthetic area sources that took operational limits in
these source categories.
Comment: One commenter believes EPA argued that its own belief that
title V is a ``significant burden'' on area sources further justifies
its exemption (73 FR 58372-58373). According to the commenter,
regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as ``significant,'' the
Agency may not exempt a category from compliance with title V
requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily burdensome.'' The
commenter stated that, in any event, EPA's claims about
[[Page 56037]]
the alleged significance of the burden of compliance is entirely
conclusory and could be applied equally to any major or area source
category. The commenter also stated that the Agency does not show that
the compliance burden is especially great for any of the sources it
proposes to exempt, and, thus, does not demonstrate that the alleged
burden necessitates treating them differently from other categories by
exempting them from compliance with title V requirements.
Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation
of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically,
the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and not a ``significant burden,'' as
expressed in the second factor of the four-factor balancing test.
As we have stated before, at proposal we found the burden placed on
these sources in complying with the title V requirements is significant
when we applied the four-factor balancing test.\12\ We note that the
commenter in other parts of its comments on the title V exemptions
argues that EPA must demonstrate that every title V requirement is
``unnecessary'' for a particular source category before an exemption
can be granted, but makes no mention of the ``burden'' of those
requirements on area sources, but here the commenter argues that
``significant burden'' is not appropriate for the second factor.
Notwithstanding the commenter's inconsistency, as explained above, the
four-factor balancing test was established in the Exemption Rule and we
did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in this rule. As explained above, we maintain that the
Agency's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as
set forth in the Exemption Rule and reiterated in the proposal to this
rule, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As discussed in Section III above, since proposal, we have
reconsidered the proposed exemption for synthetic area sources that
became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls and
determined that these sources are generally larger and more
sophisticated sources and, that for these and other reasons, the
burden on these sources would not be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, we properly analyzed the
second factor of the four-factor balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under
that factor, EPA considers whether title V permitting would impose a
significant burden on the area source categories, and whether that
burden would be aggravated by any difficulty that the sources may have
in obtaining assistance from the permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324.
The commenter appears to assert that the second factor must be
satisfied for EPA to exempt an area source category from title V, but,
as explained above, the four factors are considered in combination. We
have concluded that the second factor, in combination with the other
factors, supports an exemption for the chemical manufacturing area
sources that we are exempting from compliance with title V in this
final rule.
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA's
finding (i.e., that the burden of obtaining a title V permit is
significant, does not equate to the required finding that the burden is
unnecessary) is misplaced. While EPA could have found that the second
factor alone could justify the exemption for the sources we are
exempting in this rule, EPA found that the other three factors also
support exempting these sources from the title V requirements because
the permitting requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for the
chemical manufacturing area sources we are exempting.
Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (73 FR 58373). The commenter stated
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to any of the
categories it proposes to exempt--that the additional informational,
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that
exist in title V, but not in these NESHAP, would not provide additional
compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that the only basis for
EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those additional
requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. According to
the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate
its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's
text and legislative history.
Response: The commenter mischaracterizes the first and third
factors of the four-factor balancing test and takes out of context
certain statements in the proposed rule concerning the factors used in
the balancing test to determine if imposition of title V permit
requirements is unnecessarily burdensome for the source categories. The
commenter also mischaracterizes the first factor of the four-factor
balancing test with regard to determining whether imposition of title V
would result in significant improvements in compliance. In addition,
the commenter mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the
balancing test which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in
compliance that would result from the imposition of the title V
requirements.
First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. In
fact, our decision to not exempt synthetic area sources that installed
add-on controls was based, in part, on our determination that the
additional public participation and oversight attendant to title V
permitting was appropriate for those sources. While EPA recognizes that
requiring a title V permit offers additional compliance options, the
statute provides EPA with the discretion to evaluate whether compliance
with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to specific area
sources. For the sources we are exempting, we conclude that requiring
title V permits would be unnecessarily burdensome.
Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant
improvements in compliance requirements.
The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this
rule for the sources we are exempting, consistent with the goal in
title V permitting. For example, in the Notification of Compliance
Status report, the source must certify that it has implemented
management practices, and, if necessary, installed controls and
established monitoring parameters. See 40 CFR 63.11501 in the final
rule. The source must also submit deviation reports to the permitting
agency every 6 months if there has been a deviation in the requirements
of the rule. See 40 CFR 63.11501 in the final rule. The requirements in
the final rule provide sufficient basis to assure compliance,
[[Page 56038]]
and EPA does not believe that the title V requirements, if applicable
to the sources that we are exempting, would offer significant
improvements in the compliance of the sources with the rule.
Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination.
Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether
the costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in
compliance. In other words, EPA considers the costs of title V
permitting requirements, including consideration of any improvement in
compliance above what the rule requires. In considering the third
factor, we stated, in part, that, ``[b]ecause the costs, both economic
and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for these area source categories.'' See 73
FR 58373.
Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing
test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the
area source categories we are exempting from title V in this final
rule. As stated above, we have determined that title V is appropriate
for synthetic area sources that installed add-on controls and we are
not finalizing the exemption for those sources. As to the remaining
sources, the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's
application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of
the sources we are exempting, nor do the comments provide sufficient
basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the natural
area sources and synthetic area sources that took operational limits to
maintain HAP below major source levels.
Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that alternative
State implementation and enforcement programs assure compliance with
the underlying NESHAP without relying on title V permits (73 FR 58373).
The commenter stated that again, EPA's claim is entirely conclusory and
generic. The commenter also stated that ``the Agency does not identify
any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to
these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area source
NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V compliance is
unnecessary'' (emphasis added). Instead, according to the commenter,
EPA merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The
commenter said that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, the Agency's argument
boils down to the generic and conclusory claim that it generally views
title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that, while
this may be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view when Congress enacted
title V, and a general view that title V is unnecessary, does not
suffice to show that title V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
Response: Contrary to the commenters' assertions, EPA does believe
that title V is appropriate under certain circumstances. Indeed, we are
not finalizing the title V exemption for synthetic area sources that
became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls. However,
given the facts associated with the remainder of the sources in the
categories, we think that exemption from title V is appropriate for
those sources.
In this comment, the commenter again takes issue with the Agency's
test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable one. To the
extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor
is flawed, we disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as
to whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place
that are sufficient to assure compliance with the rule without relying
on the title V permits. In discussing the fourth factor in the
proposal, EPA states that, prior to delegating implementation and
enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure that the State has programs in
place to enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be
sufficient to assure compliance with the rule. EPA also retains
authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113,
and 114. EPA also noted other factors in the proposal that together are
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP.
The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt any of the area sources
in these categories from title V permitting requirements because
``[t]he agency does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying
NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all
the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V
exemptions--title V compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). As an
initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources from title V
permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As for area sources, the standard that
the commenter proposes--that EPA must show that ``title V compliance is
unnecessary''--is not consistent with the standard the Agency
established in the Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed rule in
determining if title V requirements are unnecessarily burdensome.
Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the chemical
manufacturing area sources we are exempting from title V requirements
is generally applicable to sources in any source category. As explained
in the proposal preamble and above, we balanced the four factors
considering the facts and circumstances of the nine source categories
at issue in this rule. For example, in assessing whether the costs of
requiring the sources to obtain a title V permit was burdensome, we
concluded that the high relative costs would not be justified given
that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance,
particularly for sources that are required to comply only with the
management practice requirements contained in the final rule. Almost
all of the sources we are exempting from title V are required to comply
only with management practices.
Comment: One commenter stated that, as EPA concedes, the
legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA
to exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing
so would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Furthermore, the commenter stated that EPA conceded this
point. See 73 FR 58373. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA
does not make any showing that its exemptions would not have adverse
impacts on health, welfare, and the environment. The commenter stated
that, instead, EPA offered only the conclusory assertion that ``the
level
[[Page 56039]]
of control would remain the same'' whether title V permits are required
or not (73 FR 58373). The commenter continued by stating that EPA
relied entirely on the conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its
proposal that compliance with title V would not yield additional
compliance with the underlying NESHAP. The commenter stated that those
arguments are wrong for the reasons given above, and, therefore, EPA's
claims about public health, welfare, and the environment are wrong too.
The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason:
To assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower
citizens to get information and enforce the CAA. The commenter said
that those benefits--of which EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--
would improve compliance with the underlying standards and, thus, have
benefits for public health, welfare, and the environment. According to
the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are
unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again,
simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary.
The commenter concluded, for the reasons given above, that the attempt
to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion,
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA
section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for
exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as requiring
consideration of the four factors discussed above. At proposal, EPA
applied these four factors to the nine chemical manufacturing area
source categories subject to this rule and concluded that requiring
title V for these area source categories would be unnecessarily
burdensome. We maintain that this conclusion is accurate for the
sources we are exempting in this rule.
In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily
burdensome on the area source categories for which we proposed
exemptions, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, consistent
with our interpretation of the legislative history, whether exempting
the area source categories would adversely affect public health,
welfare, or the environment. As explained in the proposal preamble, we
concluded that exempting the area source categories at issue in this
rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would be the same even if
title V applied. We further explained in the proposal preamble that the
title V permit program does not generally impose new substantive air
quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that
certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has
not provided any information to demonstrate that the exemption from
title V that we are finalizing will adversely affect public health,
welfare, or the environment.
VI. Impacts of the Final Area Source Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
We estimate that the final standard will reduce organic HAP
emissions by 207 tpy and metal HAP by 41 tpy from the baseline level,
for an overall HAP emission reduction of 248 tpy from the baseline.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the estimated HAP reductions under
the final standards for each type of emission point.
Table 1--Estimated Nationwide HAP Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP emission Urban HAP emission
Emission point reduction (tpy) reduction (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch process vents............ <43 13
Continuous process vents....... <29 9
Metal HAP process vents........ 41 38
Storage tanks.................. 5 5
Heat exchange systems.......... 79 24
Transfer operations............ 1 0.2
Wastewater systems............. 51 16
----------------------------------------
Total...................... 248 105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the cost impacts?
The total capital cost of the final standard is estimated at $2.8
million. The total annualized cost of the final standard, including the
annualized cost of capital equipment, is estimated at $3.2 million/yr.
Additional information on our impact estimates on the sources is
available in the docket (See Docket Number EPA-HQ--OAR-2008-0334.)
C. What are the economic impacts?
The final standard is estimated to impact a total of approximately
450 existing source facilities and 27 new sources in the next 3 years.
Many of the facilities affected by this final rule are small entities.
Our analyses indicate that the final rule will not impose a significant
adverse impact on any facilities, large or small. The average cost for
each chemical manufacturing industry is projected to be less than 0.06
percent of average sales. In addition, the average costs in each
industry are projected to be less than 0.2 percent of average sales for
the smallest facilities within each industry (i.e., facilities with 50
to 99 employees).
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?
The secondary impacts would include energy impacts associated with
direct operation of combustion control devices, energy impacts
associated with the generation of electricity to operate control
devices, and solid waste generated as a result of the metal HAP
emissions collected. Organic materials that are recovered from
wastewater using gravity separation techniques would also be a solid
waste if the material could not be reused in a process or as fuel.
We estimate that an additional 175 megawatt-hr/yr of electricity
and 260,000 standard cubic feet per year of natural gas will be needed
to operate control devices. We estimate that an additional 1.7 tpy of
criteria pollutants will be generated from the combustion of natural
gas in combustion control devices and from the combustion of coal to
generate electricity. We estimate that controlling metal HAP emissions
will generate an additional 580 tpy of solid
[[Page 56040]]
waste, including about 41 tpy of HAP metals. An estimated 8 tpy of
organic material will be recovered from wastewater using gravity
separation techniques.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions to part
63. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory
pursuant to section 113 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
This final NESHAP requires chemical manufacturing area sources to
submit an initial notification of applicability, Notification of
Compliance Status report, performance test results, and semiannual
compliance reports. The semiannual compliance reports are only required
to be submitted if any deviations from any requirements in the rule
occurred during the applicable semiannual reporting period. Area
sources must also estimate emissions from batch process vents and metal
HAP process vents, determine the TRE for continuous process vents,
identify and characterize the PSHAP concentration in wastewater
streams, prepare a heat exchange system monitoring plan, conduct design
evaluations to determine control efficiency, and conduct inspections
for leaks.
Records will be required to demonstrate compliance with the TRE
calculation requirements for continuous process vents, batch and metal
process vent emissions estimation requirements, inspections and vapor
pressure calculations for storage tanks, wastewater HAP concentration
requirements, and management practice inspection records for each CMPU.
The annual burden associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for this information collection, averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to total 10,566 labor
hours per year at a cost of $803,906. Capital/startup costs for
performance tests and monitoring equipment were annualized and
estimated at $69,484/yr; operation and maintenance costs for the
monitoring equipment were estimated at $28,787/yr. The costs
attributable to the final standards are associated with the initial
compliance demonstration, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses
found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500, 750, or 1,000 employees
depending on the specific NAICS Code under subcategory 325); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule is estimated to impact a total of approximately 450 chemical
manufacturing area sources; more than 150 of these facilities are
estimated to be small entities. An economic impacts analysis was
performed to compare the control costs associated with producing a
product at facilities in the various chemical manufacturing industries
to the average value of shipments from such facilities. In all
industries, the average costs are projected to be less than 0.07
percent of average sales. For the smallest facilities in each industry
(those with 50 to 99 employees), the average costs are all projected to
be less than 0.2 percent of average sales. Thus, any price increases or
loss of profit would be quite small.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the sources engaged in chemical manufacturing, and in many cases only
require management practices. The standards require only the
recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify
compliance.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The total annual cost of the rule is estimated at $3.2 million/yr. This
final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or tribal
governments. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no
obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on
them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States,
[[Page 56041]]
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final
rule does not impose any requirements on State and local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources
and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This action involves technical standards. EPA cites the following
standards: EPA Methods 5 and 5D in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3 and EPA
Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-8. Therefore, EPA conducted a
search to identify potentially applicable VCS. No applicable VCS were
identified for EPA Methods 5D and 29. The search identified four VCS as
possible alternatives to EPA Method 5. EPA determined that these four
standards were impractical alternatives to the EPA test methods.
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 4 methods are
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this action.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in
the final rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The final rule increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. The nationwide standards will reduce HAP emissions and thus
decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected populations are
exposed.
K. 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 Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final
rule 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 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). This final rule will be effective on
October 29, 2009.
List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of 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.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart VVVVVV to read as follows:
Subpart VVVVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11494 What are the applicability requirements and compliance
dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11495 What are the management practices and other requirements?
63.11496 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
process vents?
63.11497 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
storage tanks?
63.11498 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
wastewater systems?
[[Page 56042]]
63.11499 What are the standards and compliance requirements for heat
exchange systems?
63.11500 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another Federal standard?
63.11501 What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11502 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11503 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants Used
to Determine Applicability of Chemical Manufacturing Operations
Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Batch Process Vents
Table 3 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Continuous Process Vents
Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Metal HAP Process Vents
Table 5 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Storage Tanks
Table 6 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Wastewater Systems
Table 7 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Partially Soluble HAP
Table 8 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Table 9 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11494 What are the applicability requirements and compliance
dates?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you are
subject to this subpart if you own or operate a chemical manufacturing
process unit (CMPU) that meets the conditions specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The CMPU uses as feedstocks, generates as byproducts, or
produces as products any of the hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed
in Table 1 to this subpart (Table 1 HAP).
(2) The CMPU is located at an area source of HAP emissions.
(3) Table 1 HAP are present in feedstocks, or Table 1 HAP are
generated or produced in the CMPU and are present in process fluid, at
concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, as defined by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. To
determine the Table 1 HAP content of feedstocks, you may rely on
formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the material. If the
concentration in an MSDS is presented as a range, use the upper bound
of the range.
(b) A CMPU includes all process vessels, equipment, and activities
necessary to operate a chemical manufacturing process that produces a
material or a family of materials described by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code 325. A CMPU consists of one or more
unit operations and any associated recovery devices. A CMPU also
includes each storage tank, transfer operation, surge control vessel,
and bottoms receiver associated with the production of such NAICS code
325 materials.
(c) This subpart does not apply to the operations specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Affected sources under the following chemical manufacturing
area source categories listed pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) that are subject to area source
standards under this part:
(i) Manufacture of Paint and Allied Products, subject to subpart
CCCCCCC of this part.
(ii) Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants,
subject to subpart IIIII of this part.
(iii) Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, subject to
subpart DDDDDD of this part.
(iv) Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, subject to subpart
LLLLLL of this part.
(v) Carbon Black Production, subject to subpart MMMMMM of this
part.
(vi) Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds,
subject to subpart NNNNNN of this part.
(2) Production of the following chemical manufacturing materials
described in NAICS code 325:
(i) Manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium
chloride, radium luminous compounds, strontium, uranium.
(ii) Manufacture of photographic film, paper, and plate where the
material is coated with or contains chemicals. This subpart does apply
to the manufacture of photographic chemicals.
(iii) 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
occurs 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 subject if it involves
processing with Table 1 HAP solvent or if an intended purpose of the
operation is to remove residual Table 1 HAP monomer.
(iv) Manufacture of chemicals classified in NAICS code 325222,
325314, 325413, or 325998.
(3) Research and development facilities, as defined in CAA section
112(c)(7).
(4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories.
(5) Ancillary activities, as defined in Sec. 63.11502(b).
(6) Metal HAP in structures or existing as articles as defined in
40 CFR 372.3.
(d) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is the facility-wide collection of CMPUs and each
heat exchange system and wastewater system associated with a CMPU that
meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
A CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required to control only total
CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. A CMPU using only Table 1 metal HAP is
required to control only total CAA section 112(b) metal HAP.
(1) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source before October 6,
2008.
(2) An affected source is a new source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after
October 6, 2008.
(e) Any source that was a major source and installed a control
device on a CMPU after November 15, 1990, and, as a result, became an
area source under 40 CFR part 63 is required to obtain a permit under
40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. Otherwise, you are exempt from the
obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71,
provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under
40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this
subpart.
(f) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no
later than October 29, 2012.
(g) If you start up a new affected source on or before October 29,
2009, you must achieve compliance with the
[[Page 56043]]
applicable provisions of this subpart no later than October 29, 2009.
(h) If you start up a new affected source after October 29, 2009,
you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11495 What are the management practices and other
requirements?
(a) Management practices. If you have a CMPU subject to this
subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Each process vessel in organic HAP service or metal HAP service
must be equipped with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times
when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and
sampling.
(2) You must use any of the methods listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section to control total organic HAP emissions
from transfer of liquids containing Table 1 organic HAP to tank trucks
or railcars. You are not required to comply with this paragraph (a)(2)
if you have notified the Administrator in your initial notification
that a material is reactive or resinous, and you will not be able to
comply with any of the methods in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of
this section for the transfer of such material.
(i) Use submerged loading or bottom loading.
(ii) Route emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance
with Sec. 63.982(d) of subpart SS.
(iii) Vapor balance back to the storage tank or another storage
tank connected by a common header.
(iv) Vent through a closed-vent system to a control device.
(3) You must conduct inspections of process vessels and equipment
for each CMPU in organic HAP service or metal HAP service at least
quarterly to demonstrate compliance with these requirements and to
determine that the process vessels and equipment are sound and free of
leaks. For these inspections, detection methods incorporating sight,
sound, or smell are acceptable. The inspection must include direct and
proximal (thorough) inspection of all areas of potential leak within
the CMPU. Indications of a leak identified using such method
constitutes a leak unless you demonstrate that the indications of a
leak are due to a condition other than loss of HAP. Alternatively,
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, with a leak definition of
500 parts per million by volume (ppmv), may be used for detection of
leaks or to determine if the indications of a leak are due to a
condition other than loss of HAP. If indications of a leak are
determined not to be HAP in one quarterly monitoring period, you must
still perform the inspection and demonstration in the next quarterly
monitoring period. Inspections must be conducted while the subject CMPU
is operating. No inspection is required in a calendar quarter during
which the subject CMPU does not operate for the entire calendar quarter
and is not in organic HAP service or metal HAP service. If the CMPU
operates at all during a calendar quarter, an inspection is required.
(4) You must repair any leak within 15 calendar days after
detection of the leak, or document the reason for any delay of repair.
For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a leak will be considered
``repaired'' if a condition specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or
(iii) of this section is met.
(i) The visual, audible, olfactory, or other indications of a leak
to the atmosphere have been eliminated, or
(ii) No bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during a leak
check using soap solution, or
(iii) The system will hold a test pressure.
(5) You must keep records of the dates and results of each
inspection event, the dates of equipment repairs, and, if applicable,
the reasons for any delay in repair.
(b) Small heat exchange systems. For each heat exchange system
subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000
gallons per minute (gal/min) and not meeting one or more of the
conditions in Sec. 63.104(a), you must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section, or as an alternative, you may comply with
any one of the requirements in Item 1.a or 1.b of Table 8 to this
subpart.
(1) You must develop and operate in accordance with a heat exchange
system inspection plan. The plan must describe the inspections to be
performed that will provide evidence of hydrocarbons in the cooling
water. Among other things, inspections may include checks for visible
floating hydrocarbon on the water, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water,
and/or chemical addition rates. You must conduct inspections at least
once per quarter, even if the previous inspection determined that the
indications of a leak did not constitute a leak as defined by Sec.
63.104(b)(6).
(2) You must perform repairs to eliminate the leak and any
indications of a leak or demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined by Sec.
63.104(b)(6), within 45 calendar days after indications of the leak are
identified, or you must document the reason for any delay of repair in
your next semiannual compliance report.
(3) You must keep records of the dates and results of each
inspection, documentation of any demonstrations that indications of a
leak do not constitute a leak, the dates of leak repairs, and, if
applicable, the reasons for any delay in repair.
(c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions in subparts
that are referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not
apply.
Sec. 63.11496 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
process vents?
(a) Organic HAP Emissions from Batch Process Vents. You must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section
for organic HAP emissions from your batch process vents for each CMPU
using Table 1 organic HAP. If uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from
all batch process vents from a CMPU subject to this subpart are equal
to or greater than 10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you must also comply
with the emission limits and other requirements in Table 2 to this
subpart.
(1) You must determine the sum of actual organic HAP emissions from
all of your batch process vents within a CMPU subject to this subpart
using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data.
Emissions for a standard batch in a process may be used to represent
actual emissions from each batch in that process. You must maintain
records of the calculations. Calculations of annual emissions are not
required if you meet the emission standards for batch process vents in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(2) As an alternative to calculating actual emissions for each
affected CMPU at your facility, you may elect to estimate emissions for
each CMPU based on the emissions for the worst-case CMPU. The worst-
case CMPU means the CMPU at the affected source with the highest
organic HAP emissions per batch. The worst-case emissions per batch are
used with the number of batches run for other affected CMPU. Process
knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data may be used to identify
the worst-case process. You must keep records of the information and
procedures used to identify the worst-case process.
(3) If your current estimate is that emissions from batch process
vents from a CMPU are less than 10,000 pounds per
[[Page 56044]]
year (lb/yr), then you must keep a record of the number of batches of
each process operated per month. Also, you must reevaluate your total
emissions from batch process vents prior to making any process changes
that affect emission calculations in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section. If projected emissions increase to 10,000 lb/yr or more, you
must be in compliance options for batch process vents in Table 2 to
this subpart upon initiating operation under the new operating
conditions. You must maintain records documenting the results of all
updated emissions calculations.
(4) As an alternative to determining the HAP emissions, you may
elect to demonstrate that the amount of organic HAP used in the process
is less than 10,000 lb/yr. You must keep monthly records of the organic
HAP usage.
(b) Organic HAP Emissions from Continuous Process Vents. You must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section for organic HAP emissions from your continuous process vents
for each CMPU subject to this subpart using Table 1 organic HAP. If the
total resource-effectiveness (TRE) index value for a continuous process
vent is less than or equal to 1.0, you must also comply with the
emission limits and other requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
(1) You must determine the TRE index value according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.115(d), except as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You are not required to calculate the TRE index value if you
control emissions in accordance with Table 3 to this subpart.
(ii) Sections 63.115(d)(1)(i) and (ii) are not applicable for the
purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
(iii) You may assume the TRE for a vent stream is > 1.0 if the
amount of organic HAP emitted in the vent stream is less than 0.1 pound
per hour.
(2) If the current TRE index value is greater than 1, you must
recalculate the TRE index value before you make any process or
operational change that affects parameters in the calculation. If the
recalculated TRE is less than or equal to 1.0, then you must comply
with one of the compliance options for continuous process vents in
Table 3 to this subpart before operating under the new operating
conditions. You must maintain records of all TRE calculations.
(3) If a recovery device as defined in Sec. 63.11502 is used to
maintain the TRE index value at a level greater than 1.0 and less than
or equal to 4.0, you must comply with Sec. 63.982(e) and the
requirements specified therein.
(c) Combined Streams. If you combine organic HAP emissions from
batch process vents and continuous process vents, you must comply with
the more stringent standard in Table 2 or Table 3 to this subpart that
applies to any portion of the combined stream, or you must comply with
Table 2 for the batch process vents and Table 3 for the continuous
process vents. The TRE index value for continuous process vents and the
annual emissions from batch process vents shall be determined for the
individual streams before they are combined, and prior to any control,
in order to determine the most stringent applicable requirements.
(d) Combustion of Halogenated Streams. If you use a combustion
device to comply with the emission limits for organic HAP from a
halogenated batch process vent or a halogenated continuous process
vent, you must use a halogen reduction device to meet the emission
limit in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and in
accordance with Sec. 63.994 and the requirements referenced therein.
(1) Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
after the combustion device by greater than or equal to 95 percent, to
less than or equal to 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to a
concentration less than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume
(ppmv).
(2) Reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate before the
combustion device to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/hr or to a
concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv.
(e) Alternative Standard for Organic HAP. Exceptions to the
requirements for the alternative standard requirements specified in
Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2505 are specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) When Sec. 63.2505 of subpart FFFF refers to Tables 1 and 2 to
subpart FFFF and Sec. Sec. 63.2455 and 63.2460, it means Tables 2 and
3 to this subpart and Sec. 63.11496(a) and (b).
(2) Sections 63.2505(a)(2) and (b)(9) do not apply.
(3) When Sec. 63.2505(b) references Sec. 63.2445 it means Sec.
63.11494(f) through (h).
(4) The requirements for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP apply only
to hydrogen halide and halogen HAP generated in a combustion device
that is used to comply with the alternative standard.
(5) When Sec. 63.1258(b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) refers to a ``notification
of process change'' report, it means the semi-annual compliance report
required by Sec. 63.11501(d) for the purposes of this subpart.
(f) Emissions from Metal HAP Process Vents. You must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section for metal
HAP emissions from each CMPU using Table 1 metal HAP. If the collective
uncontrolled metal HAP emissions from all metal HAP process vents from
a CMPU are equal to or greater than 400 lb/yr, then you must also
comply with the emission limits and other requirements in Table 4 to
this subpart and in paragraph (f)(3), (4), or (5) of this section.
(1) You must determine the sum of metal HAP emissions from all
metal HAP process vents within a CMPU subject to this subpart, except
you are not required to determine the annual emissions if you control
the metal HAP process vents within a CMPU in accordance with Table 4 to
this subpart or if you determine your total metal HAP usage in the
process unit is less than 400 lb/yr. To determine the mass emission
rate you may use process knowledge, engineering assessment, or test
data. You must keep records of the emissions calculations.
(2) If your current estimate is that total uncontrolled metal HAP
emissions from a CMPU subject to this subpart are less than 400 lb/yr,
then you must keep records of either the number of batches operated per
month (batch vents) or the process operating hours (continuous vents).
Also, you must reevaluate your total emissions before you make any
process or operational change that affects emissions of metal HAP. If
projected emissions increase to 400 lb/yr or more, then you must be in
compliance with one of the options for metal HAP process vents in Table
4 to this subpart upon initiating operation under the new operating
conditions. You must keep records of all recalculated emissions
determinations.
(3) If you have an existing source subject to the HAP metals
emission limits specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you must comply
with the initial compliance and monitoring requirements in paragraphs
(f)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must keep records of
monitoring results to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(i) You must prepare a monitoring plan containing the information
in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section. The plan must
be maintained on-site and be available on request. You must operate and
maintain the control device according to a site-specific monitoring
plan at all times.
(A) A description of the device;
[[Page 56045]]
(B) Results of a performance test or engineering assessment
conducted in accordance with paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section
verifying the performance of the device for reducing HAP metals or
particulate matter (PM) to the levels required by this subpart;
(C) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and
continuous monitoring system.
(D) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits;
and
(E) Operating parameter limits based on either monitoring data
collected during the performance test or established in the engineering
assessment.
(ii) You must conduct a performance test or an engineering
assessment for each CMPU subject to a HAP metals emissions limit in
Table 4 to this subpart and report the results in your Notification of
Compliance Status (NOCS) report. If you own or operate an existing
affected source, you are not required to conduct a performance test if
a prior performance test was conducted within the 5 years prior to the
effective date using the same methods specified in paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section and either no process changes have been
made since the test, or if you can demonstrate that the results of the
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite process changes. For each performance test, sampling
must be conducted at both the inlet and outlet of the control device,
and the test must be conducted under representative process operating
conditions.
(iii) If you elect to conduct a performance test, it must be
conducted according to requirements in Sec. 63.11410(j)(1). As an
alternative to conducting a performance test using Method 5 or 5D to
determine the concentration of PM, you may use Method 29 in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-8 to determine the concentration of HAP metals. You have
demonstrated initial compliance if the overall reduction of either HAP
metals or total PM is equal to or greater than 95 percent.
(4) If you have a new source using a baghouse as a control device,
you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on
all baghouses used to comply with the HAP metals emissions limit in
Table 4 to this subpart. You must comply with the testing, monitoring,
and recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.11410(g), (i), and (j)(1),
except you are not required to submit the monitoring plan required by
Sec. 63.11410(g)(2) for approval.
(5) If you have a new source using a control device other than a
baghouse to comply with the HAP metals emission limits in Table 4 to
this subpart, you must comply with the initial compliance and
monitoring requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(g) Exceptions and Alternatives to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS. If
you are complying with the emission limits and other requirements for
continuous process vents in Table 3 to this subpart, the provisions in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) and (9) of this section apply in addition
to the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you are complying
with the emission limits and other requirements for batch process vents
in Table 2 to this subpart, the provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(8) of this section apply in addition to the provisions in subpart SS.
(1) Requirements for Performance Tests. The requirements specified
in Sec. Sec. 63.2450(g)(1) through (4) apply instead of or in addition
to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
(2) Design Evaluation. To determine initial compliance with a
percent reduction emission limit, 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 batch process vents, the design evaluation
must be conducted under worst-case conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.2460(c)(2).
(3) Outlet Concentration Correction for Combustion Devices. When
Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to correct the measured
concentration at the outlet of a combustion device to 3 percent oxygen
if you add supplemental combustion air, the requirements in either
paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this section apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(i) You must correct the concentration in the gas stream at the
outlet of the combustion device to 3 percent oxygen if you add
supplemental gases, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, to the vent stream,
or;
(ii) You must correct the measured concentration for supplemental
gases using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.2460; you may use process knowledge
and representative operating data to determine the fraction of the
total flow due to supplemental gas.
(4) Continuous Parameter Monitoring. The provisions in Sec.
63.2450(k)(1) through (6) apply in addition to the requirements for
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) in subpart SS of this
part 63, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) You may measure pH at least once per day for any halogen
scrubber within a CMPU subject to this rule.
(ii) The requirements in Sec. 63.2450(k)(6) to request approval of
a procedure to monitor operating parameters does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must provide the required information in
your NOCS report required by Sec. 63.11501(b).
(5) Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM). Section
63.998(b)(2)(iii),(b)(6)(i)(A), and (d)(3) do not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(6) Excused Excursions. Excused excursions, as defined in subpart
SS of this part 63, are not allowed.
(7) Energetics and Organic Peroxides. If an emission stream
contains energetics or organic peroxides that, for safety reasons,
cannot meet an applicable emission limit specified in this subpart,
then you must submit an application to the Administrator explaining why
an undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls
were installed, and you must describe the procedures that you will
implement to minimize HAP emissions from these vent streams in lieu of
the emission limitations in this section.
(8) Additional Requirements for Batch Process Vents. The provisions
specified in Sec. 63.2460(c) apply in addition to the provisions in
subpart SS of this part 63, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(8)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) References to emission limits in Table 2 to subpart FFFF mean
the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(ii) References to MCPU mean CMPU for purposes of this subpart.
(iii) Section 63.2460(c)(8) does not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(9) Parameter Monitoring Averaging Periods. Daily averages required
in Sec. 63.998(b)(3) apply at all times except during startup and
shutdown. Separate averages shall be determined for each period of
startup and period of shutdown.
[[Page 56046]]
(h) Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers. For each surge
control vessel and bottoms receiver that meets the applicability
criteria for storage tanks specified in Table 5 to this subpart, you
must meet the emission limits and control requirements specified in
Table 5 to this subpart.
(i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). References to SSM
provisions in subparts that are referenced in paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section or Tables 2 through 5 to this subpart do not apply.
Sec. 63.11497 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
storage tanks?
(a) You must comply with the emission limits and other requirements
in Table 5 to this subpart and in paragraph (b) of this section for
organic HAP emissions from each of your storage tanks that meet the
applicability criteria in Table 5 to this subpart.
(b) Planned Routine Maintenance for a Control Device. Operate in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section for
periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device for storage
tanks.
(1) Add no material to the storage tank during periods of planned
routine maintenance.
(2) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control
device (or series of control devices) to no more than 240 hours per
year (hr/yr), or submit an application to the Administrator requesting
an extension of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The
application must explain why the extension is needed and it must be
submitted at least 60 days before the 240-hour limit will be exceeded.
(3) Keep records of the day and time at which planned routine
maintenance periods begin and end, and keep a record of the type of
maintenance performed.
(c) References to SSM provisions in subparts that are referenced in
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section or Table 5 to this subpart do not
apply.
Sec. 63.11498 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
wastewater systems?
(a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) and
(2) of this section and in Table 6, Item 1 to this subpart for all
wastewater streams from a CMPU subject to this subpart. If the
partially soluble HAP concentration in a wastewater stream is equal to
or greater than 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) and the
wastewater stream contains a separate organic phase, then you must also
comply with Table 6, Item 2 to this subpart for that wastewater stream.
Partially soluble HAP are listed in Table 7 to this subpart.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must determine the total concentration of partially soluble HAP in each
wastewater stream using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or
test data. Also, you must reevaluate the concentration of partially
soluble HAP if you make any process or operational change that affects
the concentration of partially soluble HAP in a wastewater stream.
(2) You are not required to determine the partially soluble
concentration in wastewater that is hard piped to a combustion unit or
hazardous waste treatment unit, and you are not required to determine
the partially soluble HAP concentration in wastewater that is hard
piped to a storage tank from which the wastewater is collected and
shipped offsite for treatment in a combustion unit or hazardous waste
treatment unit.
(3) Separated organic material that is recycled to a process is no
longer wastewater and no longer subject to the wastewater requirements
after it has been recycled.
(b) The requirements in Item 2 of Table 6 to this subpart do not
apply during periods of startup or shutdown. References to SSM
provisions in subparts that are referenced in paragraph (a) of this
section or Table 6 to this subpart do not apply.
Sec. 63.11499 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
heat exchange systems?
(a) If the cooling water flow rate in your heat exchange system is
equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/min and is not meeting one or more
of the conditions in Sec. 63.104(a), then you must comply with one of
the requirements specified in Table 8 to this subpart.
(b) For equipment that meets Current Good Manufacturing Practice
(CGMP) requirements of 21 CFR part 211, you may use the physical
integrity of the reactor as the surrogate indicator of heat exchanger
system leaks when complying with Item 1.a in Table 8 to this subpart.
(c) Any reference to SSM provisions in other subparts that are
referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section or Table 8 to this
subpart do not apply.
Sec. 63.11500 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant
is subject to both this subpart and another Federal standard?
For any CMPU, heat exchange system, or wastewater system subject to
the provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may elect to
comply only with the more stringent provisions as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. You must consider all
provisions of the rules, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. You must identify the subject CMPU, heat exchange system,
and/or wastewater system, and the provisions with which you will comply
in your NOCS report required by Sec. 63.11501(b). You also must
demonstrate in your NOCS report that each provision with which you will
comply is at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable requirement
in this subpart VVVVVV. You are responsible for making accurate
determinations concerning the more stringent standards and
noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later determined
that your determination was in error and, as a result, you are
violating this subpart. Compliance with this rule is your
responsibility and the NOCS report does not alter or affect that
responsibility.
(a) Compliance with Other Subparts of this Part 63. If any part of
a CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also
subject to the provisions of another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, then
compliance with any of the requirements in the other subpart of this
part 63 that are at least as stringent as the corresponding
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this
subpart VVVVVV.
(b) Compliance with Subparts of 40 CFR Part 60. If any part of a
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject
to the provisions of subpart VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or YYY in 40 CFR
part 60, then compliance with any of the requirements in 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or YYY that are at least as
stringent as the corresponding requirements in this subpart VVVVVV
constitutes compliance with this subpart VVVVVV.
(c) Compliance with Subparts of 40 CFR Part 61. If any part of a
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject
to the provisions of subpart V, Y, BB, or FF of 40 CFR part 61, then
compliance with any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V,
Y, BB, or FF that are at least as stringent as the corresponding
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this
subpart VVVVVV.
(d) Compliance with 40 CFR Parts 260 through 272. If any part of a
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272, then compliance with
any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 260
[[Page 56047]]
through 272 rule that are at least as stringent as the corresponding
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this
subpart VVVVVV.
Sec. 63.11501 What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) General Provisions. You must meet the requirements of the
General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 9 to
this subpart. The General Provisions in other parts do not apply except
when a requirement in an overlapping standard, which you determined is
at least as stringent as subpart VVVVVV and with which you have opted
to comply, requires compliance with general provisions in another part.
(b) Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS). Your NOCS required by
Sec. 63.9(h) must include the following additional information as
applicable:
(1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official:
(i) ``This facility complies with the management practices in Sec.
63.11495.''
(ii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.
63.11496 for HAP emissions from process vents.''
(iii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.
63.11496 and Sec. 63.11497 for surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers, and storage tanks.''
(iv) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.
63.11498 to treat wastewater streams.''
(v) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.
63.11499 for heat exchange systems.''
(2) If you comply with the alternative standard as specified in
Table 2 to this subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, include the
information specified in Sec. 63.1258(b)(5), as applicable.
(3) If you establish an operating limit for a parameter that will
not be monitored continuously in accordance with Sec. Sec.
63.11496(g)(4) and 63.2450(k)(6), provide the information as specified
in Sec. Sec. 63.11496(g)(4) and 63.2450(k)(6).
(4) A list of all transferred liquids that are reactive or resinous
materials, as defined in Sec. 63.11502(b).
(5) If you comply with provisions in an overlapping rule in
accordance with Sec. 63.11500, identify the affected CMPU, heat
exchange system, and/or wastewater system; provide a list of the
specific provisions with which you will comply; and demonstrate that
the provisions with which you will comply are at least as stringent as
the otherwise applicable requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, in this subpart VVVVVV.
(c) Recordkeeping. You must maintain files of all information
required by this subpart for at least 5 years following the date of
each occurrence according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(1). If
you are subject, you must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) and the applicable requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) For each CMPU subject to this subpart you must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section, as
applicable.
(i) Records of management practice inspections, repairs, and
reasons for any delay of repair, as specified in Sec. 63.11495(a)(5).
(ii) Records of small heat exchange system inspections,
demonstrations of indications of leaks that do not constitute leaks,
repairs, and reasons for any delay in repair as specified in Sec.
63.11495(b).
(iii) If batch process vent emissions are less than 10,000 lb/yr
for a CMPU, records of batch process vent emission calculations, as
specified in Sec. 63.11496(a)(1), the number of batches operated each
month, as specified in Sec. 63.11496(a)(3), and any updated emissions
calculations, as specified in Sec. 63.11496(a)(3). Alternatively, keep
records of the worst-case processes or organic HAP usage, as specified
in Sec. 63.11496(a)(2) and (4), respectively.
(iv) Records of all TRE calculations for continuous process vents
as specified in Sec. 63.11496(b)(2).
(v) Records of metal HAP emission calculations as specified in
Sec. 63.11496(f)(1) and (2). If total uncontrolled metal HAP process
vent emissions from a CMPU subject to this subpart are estimated to be
less than 400 lb/yr, also keep records of either the number of batches
per month or operating hours, as specified in Sec. 63.11496(f)(2).
(vi) Records identifying wastewater streams and the type of
treatment they receive, as specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
(2) For batch process vents subject to Table 2 to this subpart and
continuous process vents subject to Table 3 to this subpart, you must
keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section,
as applicable.
(i) If you route emissions to a control device other than a flare,
keep records of performance tests, if applicable, as specified in Sec.
63.998(a)(2)(ii) and (4), keep records of the monitoring system and the
monitored parameters, as specified in Sec. 63.998(b) and (c), and keep
records of the closed-vent system, as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1).
If you use a recovery device to maintain the TRE above 1.0 for a
continuous process vent, keep records of monitoring parameters during
the TRE index value determination, as specified in Sec. 63.998(a)(3).
(ii) If you route emissions to a flare, keep records of the flare
compliance assessment, as specified in Sec. 63.998(a)(1)(i), keep
records of the pilot flame monitoring, as specified in Sec.
63.998(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), and keep records of the closed-vent system,
as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1).
(3) For metal HAP process vents subject to Table 4 to this subpart,
you must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this
section, as applicable.
(i) For a new source using a control device other than a baghouse
and for any existing source, maintain a monitoring plan, as specified
in Sec. 63.11496(f)(3)(i), and keep records of monitoring results, as
specified in Sec. 63.11496(f)(3).
(ii) For a new source using a baghouse to control metal HAP
emissions, keep a site-specific monitoring plan, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.11496(f)(4) and 63.11410(g), and keep records of bag leak
detection systems, as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11496(f)(4) and
63.11410(g)(4).
(4) For each storage tank subject to Table 5 to this subpart, you
must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (vi) of
this section, as applicable.
(i) Keep records of the vessel dimension, capacity, and liquid
stored, as specified in Sec. 63.1065(a).
(ii) Keep records of each inspection of an internal floating roof,
as specified in Sec. 63.1065(b)(1).
(iii) Keep records of each seal gap measurement for external
floating roofs, as specified in Sec. 63.1065(b)(2), and keep records
of inspections of external floating roofs, as specified in Sec.
63.1065(b)(1).
(iv) If you vent emissions to a control device other than a flare,
keep records of the operating plan and measured parameter values, as
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.985(c) and 63.998(d)(2).
(v) If you vent emissions to a flare, keep records of all periods
of operation during which the flare pilot flame is absent, as specified
in Sec. Sec. 63.987(c) and 63.998(a)(1), and keep records of closed-
vent systems, as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1).
(vi) For periods of planned routine maintenance of a control
device, keep records of the day and time at which each maintenance
period begins and ends, and keep records of the type of maintenance
performed, as specified in Sec. 63.11497(b)(3).
[[Page 56048]]
(5) For each wastewater stream subject to Item 2 in Table 6 to this
subpart, keep records of the wastewater stream identification and the
disposition of the organic phase(s), as specified in Item 2 to Table 6
to this subpart.
(6) For each large heat exchange system subject to Table 8 to this
subpart, you must keep records of detected leaks; the date the leak was
detected; if demonstrated not to be a leak, the basis for that
determination; the date of efforts to repair the leak; and the date the
leak is repaired, as specified in Table 8 to this subpart.
(7) You must keep a record of all transferred liquids that are
reactive or resinous materials, as defined in Sec. 63.11502(b), and
not included in the NOCS.
(d) Semiannual Compliance Reports. You must submit semiannual
compliance reports that contain the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (7) of this section, as applicable. Reports are required
only for semiannual periods during which you experienced any of the
events described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Deviations. You must clearly identify any deviation from the
requirements of this subpart.
(2) Delay of Repair for a Large Heat Exchange System. You must
include the information specified in Sec. 63.104(f)(2) each time you
invoke the delay of repair provisions for a heat exchange system with a
cooling water flow rate equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/min.
(3) Delay of Leak Repair. You must provide the following
information for each delay of leak repair beyond 15 days for any
process equipment, storage tank, surge control vessel, bottoms
receiver, and each delay of leak repair beyond 45 days for any heat
exchange system with a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000 gal/min:
information on the date the leak was identified, the reason for the
delay in repair, and the date the leak was repaired.
(4) Process Change. You must report each process change that
affects a compliance determination and submit a new certification of
compliance with the applicable requirements in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) Data for the Alternative Standard. If you comply with the
alternative standard, as specified in Table 2 to this subpart or Table
3 to this subpart, report the information required in Sec.
63.1258(b)(5).
(6) Overlapping Rule Requirements. Report any changes in the
overlapping provisions with which you comply.
(7) Reactive and Resinous Materials. Report any transfer of liquids
that are reactive or resinous materials, as defined in Sec.
63.11502(b), and not included in the NOCS.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11502 What definitions apply to this subpart?
(a) The following terms used in this subpart have the meaning given
them in the CAA, Sec. 63.2, subpart SS (Sec. 63.981), subpart WW
(Sec. 63.1061), 40 CFR 60.111b, subpart F (Sec. 63.101), subpart G
(Sec. 63.111), subpart FFFF (Sec. 63.2550), as specified after each
term:
Administrator (Sec. 63.2)
Article (40 CFR 372.3)
Boiler (Sec. 63.111)
Bottoms receiver (Sec. 63.2550)
CAA (Sec. 63.2)
Closed-vent system (Sec. 63.981)
Combustion device (Sec. 63.111)
Commenced (Sec. 63.2)
Compliance date (Sec. 63.2)
Container (Sec. 63.111)
Continuous monitoring system (Sec. 63.2)
Distillation unit (Sec. 63.111)
Emission standard (Sec. 63.2)
EPA (Sec. 63.2)
Family of materials (Sec. 63.2550)
Fill or filling (Sec. 63.111)
Floating roof (Sec. 63.1061)
Fuel gas system (Sec. 63.981)
Halogen atoms (Sec. 63.2550)
Halogenated vent stream (Sec. 63.2550)
Halogens and hydrogen halides (Sec. 63.2550)
Hazardous air pollutant (Sec. 63.2)
Heat exchange system (Sec. 63.101)
Incinerator (Sec. 63.111)
Maintenance wastewater (Sec. 63.2550)
Major source (Sec. 63.2)
Maximum true vapor pressure (Sec. 63.111)
Oil-water separator or organic-water separator (Sec. 63.111)
Operating permit (Sec. 63.101)
Owner or operator (Sec. 63.2)
Performance test (Sec. 63.2)
Permitting authority (Sec. 63.2)
Process condenser (Sec. 63.2550)
Process heater (Sec. 63.111)
Process tank (Sec. 63.2550)
Process wastewater (Sec. 63.101)
Reactor (Sec. 63.111)
Responsible official (Sec. 63.2)
State (Sec. 63.2)
Supplemental gases (Sec. 63.2550)
Surge control vessel (Sec. 63.2550)
Test method (Sec. 63.2)
Unit operation (Sec. 63.101)
(b) All other terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning
given them in this section. If a term is defined in the CAA, Sec.
63.2, subpart SS (Sec. 63.981), subpart WW (Sec. 63.1061), 40 CFR
60.111b, subpart F (Sec. 63.101), subpart G (Sec. 63.111), or subpart
FFFF (Sec. 63.2550), and in this section, it shall have the meaning
given in this section for purposes of this subpart.
Ancillary activities means boilers, incinerators, and process
heaters not used to comply with the emission standards in Sec. Sec.
63.11495 through 63.11500, chillers and other refrigeration systems,
and other equipment and activities that are not directly involved
(i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials are not
combined with process fluids) in the processing of raw materials or the
manufacturing of a product or intermediates used in the production of
the product.
Batch process vent means a vent from a CMPU or vents from multiple
CMPUs within a process that are manifolded together into a common
header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Batch process vents
include vents with intermittent flow from continuous operations that
are not combined with any stream that originated as a continuous gas
stream from the same continuous process. Examples of batch process
vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for
product recovery, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks.
The following are not batch process vents for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Continuous process vents;
(2) Bottoms receivers;
(3) Surge control vessels;
(4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s);
(5) A gas stream routed to other processes for reaction or other
use in another process (i.e., for chemical value as a product, isolated
intermediate, byproduct, or coproduct, or for heat value).
(6) Vents on storage tanks or wastewater systems;
(7) Drums, pails, and totes; and
(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. The HAP concentration may be determined using any of the
following: process knowledge, an engineering assessment, or test data.
Byproduct means a chemical (liquid, gas, or solid) that is produced
coincidentally during the production of the product.
Chemical manufacturing process means all equipment which
collectively functions to produce a product or isolated intermediate. A
process includes, but is not limited to any, all, or a combination of
reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other
[[Page 56049]]
activity, operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to
produce a product or isolated intermediate. A process is also defined
by the following:
(1) Routine cleaning operations conducted as part of batch
operations are considered part of the process;
(2) Each nondedicated solvent recovery operation is considered a
single process;
(3) Each nondedicated formulation operation is considered a single
process;
(4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories are not
considered part of any process;
(5) Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of
any process; and
(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 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 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.
Continuous process vent means a ``process vent'' as defined in
Sec. 63.101 in subpart F of this part, except:
(1) The reference in Sec. 63.107(e) to a chemical manufacturing
process unit that meets the criteria of Sec. 63.100(b) means a CMPU
that meets the criteria of Sec. 63.11494(a) and (b);
(2) The reference in Sec. 63.107(h)(2) to subpart H means Sec.
63.11495(a) for the purposes of this subpart;
(3) The reference in Sec. 63.107(h)(4) to Sec. 63.113 means
Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart;
(4) The reference in Sec. 63.107(h)(7) to Sec. 63.119 means Table
5 to this subpart, and the reference to Sec. 63.126 does not apply for
the purposes of this subpart;
(5) The second sentence in the definition of ``process vent'' in
Sec. 63.101 does not apply for the purposes of this subpart;
(6) The references to an ``air oxidation reactor, distillation
unit, or reactor'' in Sec. 63.107 means any continuous operation for
the purposes of this subpart;
(7) Section Sec. 63.107(h)(8) does not apply for the purposes of
this subpart; and
(8) A separate determination is required for the emissions from
each CMPU, even if emission streams from two or more CMPU are combined
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or to a control device.
Co-Product means a chemical that is produced during the production
of another chemical, both for their intended production.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including,
but not limited to any emissions limitation or management practice; or
fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve,
connector, and instrumentation system in or associated with a CMPU.
Feedstock means any raw material, reactant, solvent, additive, or
other material introduced to a CMPU.
In metal HAP service means that a process vessel or piece of
equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or
product that contains metal HAP.
In organic HAP service means that a process vessel or piece of
equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or
product that contains an organic HAP.
Metal HAP means the compounds containing metals listed as HAP in
section 112(b) of the CAA.
Metal HAP process vent means the point of discharge to the
atmosphere (or inlet to a control device, if any) of a metal HAP-
containing gas stream from any CMPU at an affected source.
Organic HAP means any organic HAP listed in section 112(b) of the
CAA. For the purposes of requirements in this subpart VVVVVV, hydrazine
is to be considered an organic HAP.
Process vessel means each vessel, except hand-held containers, used
in the processing of raw materials to chemical products. Examples
include, but are not limited to reactors, distillation units,
centrifuges, mixing vessels, and process tanks.
Product means a compound or chemical which is manufactured as the
intended product of the CMPU. Products include co-products. By-
products, isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace
contaminants are not considered products.
Reactive material means energetics, organic peroxides, and unstable
chemicals such as chemicals that react violently with water and
chemicals that vigorously polymerize, decompose, or become self-
reactive under conditions of pressure or temperature.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of
and normally used for the purpose of recovering organic chemicals or
metal-containing chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating
value), use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. 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.
Resinous material means a viscous, high-boiling point material
resembling pitch or tar, such as plastic resin, that sticks to or
hardens in the fill pipe under normal transfer conditions.
Shutdown, for a unit operation with a continuous process vent,
means the cessation of the unit operation for any purpose. Shutdown
begins with the initiation of steps as described in a written standard
operating procedures (SOP) or shutdown plan to cease normal/stable
operation (e.g., reducing or immediately stopping feed).
Startup, for a unit operation with a continuous process vent, means
the setting in operation of the unit for any purpose. The period of
startup ends upon completion of the transient, non-equilibrium step at
the time operating conditions reach steady state for operating
parameters such as temperature, pressure, composition, feed rate, and
production rate. Periods of startup described by SOP manuals at the
affected source may be used to determine the period of startup.
Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
liquids that contain organic HAP and that are part of a CMPU subject to
this subpart VVVVVV. The following are not considered storage tanks for
the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals (kPa) and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Process tanks;
(4) Tanks storing organic liquids containing HAP only as
impurities;
(5) Surge control vessels;
(6) Bottoms receivers; and
(7) Wastewater storage tanks.
Transfer operations means all product loading into tank trucks and
rail cars of liquid containing organic HAP from a transfer rack.
Transfer operations do not
[[Page 56050]]
include the loading to other types of containers such as cans, drums,
and totes.
Transfer rack means the system used to load organic liquids into
tank trucks and railcars at a single geographic site. It includes all
loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other
piping and equipment necessary for the transfer operation. Transfer
equipment that are physically separate (i.e., do not share common
piping, valves, and other equipment) are considered to be separate
transfer racks.
Wastewater means water that is discarded from a CMPU or control
device and that contains at least 5 ppmw of any HAP listed in Table 9
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G and has an annual average flow rate of
0.02 liters per minute. Wastewater means both process wastewater and
maintenance wastewater that is discarded from a CMPU or control device.
The following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(3) Spills;
(4) Water from safety showers;
(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the
method of analysis that is used;
(6) Equipment leaks;
(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses
after cleaning lines; and
(8) Noncontact cooling water.
Wastewater stream means a single point discharge of wastewater from
a CMPU or control device.
Wastewater treatment means chemical, biological, and mechanical
procedures applied to wastewater to remove or reduce HAP or other
chemical constituents.
Sec. 63.11503 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, then that Agency
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of a major change to a test method. A ``major change
to test method'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec. 63.90.
Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63
As required in Sec. 63.11494(a), chemical manufacturing operations
that process, use, or produce the HAP shown in the following table are
subject to subpart VVVVVV.
Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants Used To
Determine Applicability of Chemical Manufacturing Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of HAP Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Organic compounds........... a. 1,3-butadiene....... 106990
b. 1,3-dichloropropene. 542756
c. Acetaldehyde........ 75070
d. Chloroform.......... 67663
e. Ethylene dichloride. 107062
f. Hexachlorobenzene... 118741
g. Methylene chloride.. 75092
h. Quinoline........... 91225
2. Metal compounds............. a. Arsenic compounds... ..............
b. Cadmium compounds... ..............
c. Chromium compounds.. ..............
d. Lead compounds...... ..............
e. Manganese compounds. ..............
f. Nickel compounds.... ..............
3. Others...................... a. Hydrazine........... 302012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11496, you must comply with the
requirements for batch process vents as shown in the following table.
[[Page 56051]]
Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Batch Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Batch process vents in a a. Reduce collective i. Compliance may be
CMPU at an existing source uncontrolled total based on either
for which the total organic organic HAP total organic HAP
HAP emissions are equal to emissions from the or total organic
or greater than 10,000 lb/ sum of all batch carbon (TOC); and
yr. process vents by ii. As specified in
>=85 percent by Sec. 63.11496(g).
weight or to <=20
ppmv by routing
emissions from a
sufficient number
of the batch
process vents
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
(except a flare) in
accordance with the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)
and the
requirements
referenced therein;
or
b. Route emissions i. Not applicable.
from batch process
vents containing at
least 85 percent of
the uncontrolled
total organic HAP
through a closed-
vent system to a
flare (except that
a flare may not be
used to control
halogenated vent
streams) in
accordance with the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(b)
and the
requirements
referenced therein;
or
c. Comply with the i. As specified in
alternative Sec. 63.11496(e)
standard specified of this subpart.
in Sec. 63.2505
and the
requirements
referenced therein;
or
d. Comply with i. The information
combinations of the specified above for
requirements in Items a., b., and
Items a., b., and c., as applicable.
c. of this Table
for different
groups of batch
process vents.
2. Batch process vents in a a. Comply with any i. The information
CMPU at a new source for of the emission specified above for
which the total organic HAP limits in Items 1.a Items 1.a., 1.b.,
emissions are equal to or through 1.d of this 1.c., and 1.d, as
greater than 10,000 lb/yr. Table, except 90 applicable.
percent reduction
applies instead of
85 percent
reduction in Item
1.a, and 90 percent
of the emissions
must be routed to a
flare instead of 85
percent in Item 1.b.
3. Halogenated batch process a. Comply with the
vent stream at a new or requirements for
existing source that is halogen scrubbers
controlled through in Sec.
combustion. 63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11496, you must comply with the
requirements for continuous process vents as shown in the following
table.
TABLE 3 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Continuous Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each continuous process a. Reduce emissions i. Compliance may be
vent with a TRE <=1.0. of total organic based on either
HAP by >=95 percent total organic HAP
by weight (>=85 or TOC; and
percent by weight ii. As specified in
for periods of Sec. 63.11496(g).
startup or
shutdown) or to
<=20 ppmv by
routing emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
(except a flare) in
accordance with the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(c)(2)
and the
requirements
referenced therein;
or
b. Reduce emissions i. Not applicable.
of total organic by
HAP by routing all
emissions through a
closed-vent system
to a flare (except
that a flare may
not be used to
control halogenated
vent streams) in
accordance with the
requirements of
Sec. 63.982(b)
and the
requirements
referenced therein;
or
c. Comply with the i. As specified in
alternative Sec. 63.11496(e).
standard specified
in Sec. 63.2505
and the
requirements
referenced therein.
2. Halogenated vent stream a. Comply with the
that is controlled through requirements for
combustion. halogen scrubbers
in Sec.
63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11496(f), you must comply with the
requirements for metal HAP process vents as shown in the following
table.
[[Page 56052]]
Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Metal HAP Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each CMPU with total metal Reduce collective Not applicable.
HAP emissions >=400 lb/yr. uncontrolled
emissions of total
metal HAP emissions
by >=95 percent by
weight by routing
emissions from a
sufficient number
of the metal
process vents
through a closed-
vent system to any
combination of
control devices,
according to the
requirements of
Sec.
63.11496(f)(3),
(4), or (5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11497, you must comply with the
requirements for storage tanks as shown in the following table.
Table 5 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Storage Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each * * * You must * * * Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank with a a. Comply with the i. All required
design capacity >=40,000 requirements of seals must be
gallons, storing liquid subpart WW of this installed by the
that contains organic HAP part; compliance date in
listed in Table 1 to this Sec. 63.11494.
subpart, and for which the
maximum true vapor pressure
(MTVP) of total organic HAP
at the storage temperature
is >=5.2 kPa and <76.6 kPa.
b. Reduce total i. Compliance may be
organic HAP based on either
emissions by >=95 total organic HAP
percent by weight or TOC;
by operating and ii. Comply with the
maintaining a management practice
closed-vent system inspection
and control device requirements in
(other than a Sec. 63.11495 for
flare) in the closed-vent
accordance with system;
Sec. iii. When the term
63.982(c)(1); or storage vessel is
used in subpart SS
of this part, the
term storage tank,
surge control
vessel, or bottoms
receiver, as
defined in Sec.
63.11502 of this
subpart, applies;
and
iv. The requirements
do not apply during
periods of planned
routine maintenance
of the control
device, as
specified in Sec.
63.11497(b).
c. Reduce total HAP i. The requirements
emissions by do not apply during
operating and periods of planned
maintaining a routine maintenance
closed-vent system of the flare, as
and a flare in specified in Sec.
accordance with 63.11497(b); and
Sec. 63.982(b); ii. When the term
or storage vessel is
used in subpart SS
of this part, it
means storage tank,
surge control
vessel, or bottoms
receiver, as
defined in Sec.
63.11502 of this
subpart.
d. Vapor balance in i. Not applicable.
accordance with
Sec. 63.2470(e);
or
e. Route emissions i. When the term
to a fuel gas storage vessel is
system or process used in subpart SS
in accordance with of this part, it
the requirements in means storage tank,
Sec. 63.982(d) surge control
and the vessel, or bottoms
requirements receiver, as
referenced therein. defined in Sec.
63.11502.
2. Storage tank with a a. Comply with one i. The information
design capacity >=20,000 of the options in specified above for
gallons and <40,000 Item 1 of this Items 1.a., 1.b.,
gallons, storing liquid table. 1.c., 1.d, and 1.e,
that contains organic HAP as applicable.
listed in Table 1 to this
subpart, and for which the
MTVP of total organic HAP
at the storage temperature
is >=27.6 kPa and <76.6 kPa.
3. Storage tank with a a. Comply with i. The information
design capacity >=20,000 option b, c, d, or specified above for
gallons, storing liquid e in Item 1 of this Items 1.b., 1.c.,
that contains organic HAP table. 1.d, and 1.e, as
listed in Table 1 to this applicable.
subpart, and for which the
MTVP of total organic HAP
at the storage temperature
is >=76.6 kPa.
4. Storage tank described by a. Reduce emissions
Item 1, 2, or 3 in this of hydrogen halide
table and emitting a and halogen HAP by
halogenated vent stream >=95 percent by
that is controlled with a weight, or to
combustion device. <=0.45 kg/hr, or to
<=20 ppmv by using
a halogen reduction
device after the
combustion device
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.11496(d);
or
[[Page 56053]]
b. Reduce the
halogen atom mass
emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr or to
<=20 ppmv by using
a halogen reduction
device before the
combustion device
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11498, you must comply with the
requirements for wastewater systems as shown in the following table.
Table 6 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Wastewater Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each * * * You must * * * And you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wastewater stream........ a. Discharge to i. Maintain records
onsite or offsite identifying each
treatment. wastewater stream
and documenting the
type of treatment
that it receives.
Multiple wastewater
streams with
similar
characteristics and
from the same type
of activity in a
CMPU may be grouped
together for
recordkeeping
purposes.
2. Wastewater stream a. Use a decanter, i. For the water
containing partially steam stripper, phase, comply with
soluble HAP at a thin film the requirements in
concentration >=10,000 ppmw evaporator, or Item 1 of this
and separate organic and distillation unit table, and
water phases. to separate the ii. For the organic
water phase from phase(s), recycle
the organic to a process, use
phase(s); or as fuel, or dispose
as hazardous waste
either onsite or
offsite, and
iii. Keep records of
the wastewater
streams subject to
this requirement
and the disposition
of the organic
phase(s).
b. Hard pipe the i. Keep records of
entire wastewater the wastewater
stream to onsite streams subject to
treatment as a this requirement
hazardous waste, or and the disposition
hard pipe the of the wastewater
entire wastewater streams.
stream to a point
of transfer for
offsite treatment
as a hazardous
waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11498(a), you must comply with emission
limits for wastewater streams that contain the partially soluble HAP
listed in the following table.
Table 7 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Partially Soluble HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partially soluble HAP name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)................. 71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................. 79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane..................................... 79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)................ 75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane......................................... 106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride).................. 107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane....................................... 78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene....................................... 542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol..................................... 95954
10. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene...................................... 106467
11. 2-Nitropropane........................................... 79469
12. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK).............................. 108101
13. Acetaldehyde............................................. 75070
14. Acrolein................................................. 107028
15. Acrylonitrile............................................ 107131
16. Allyl chloride........................................... 107051
17. Benzene.................................................. 71432
18. Benzyl chloride.......................................... 100447
19. Biphenyl................................................. 92524
20. Bromoform (tribromomethane).............................. 75252
21. Bromomethane............................................. 74839
22. Butadiene................................................ 106990
23. Carbon disulfide......................................... 75150
24. Chlorobenzene............................................ 108907
25. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)............................ 75003
26. Chloroform............................................... 67663
27. Chloromethane............................................ 74873
28. Chloroprene.............................................. 126998
29. Cumene................................................... 98828
30. Dichloroethyl ether...................................... 111444
31. Dinitrophenol............................................ 51285
32. Epichlorohydrin.......................................... 106898
33. Ethyl acrylate........................................... 140885
34. Ethylbenzene............................................. 100414
35. Ethylene oxide........................................... 75218
36. Ethylidene dichloride.................................... 75343
37. Hexachlorobenzene........................................ 118741
38. Hexachlorobutadiene...................................... 87683
39. Hexachloroethane......................................... 67721
40. Methyl methacrylate...................................... 80626
41. Methyl-t-butyl ether..................................... 1634044
42. Methylene chloride....................................... 75092
43. N-hexane................................................. 110543
44. N,N-dimethylaniline...................................... 121697
45. Naphthalene.............................................. 91203
46. Phosgene................................................. 75445
47. Propionaldehyde.......................................... 123386
48. Propylene oxide.......................................... 75569
49. Styrene.................................................. 100425
50. Tetrachloroethylene (per- chloroethylene)................ 127184
51. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)................ 56235
52. Toluene.................................................. 108883
53. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)................................ 120821
54. Trichloroethylene........................................ 79016
55. Trimethylpentane......................................... 540841
56. Vinyl acetate............................................ 108054
57. Vinyl chloride........................................... 75014
58. Xylene (m)............................................... 108383
59. Xylene (o)............................................... 95476
60. Xylene (p)............................................... 106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11499, you must comply with the
requirements for heat exchange systems as shown in the following table.
[[Page 56054]]
Table 8 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * * Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each heat exchange system a. Comply with the i. The reference
with a cooling water flow rate monitoring to monthly
>=8,000 gal/min and not meeting requirements in monitoring for
one or more of the conditions Sec. 63.104(c), the first 6
in Sec. 63.104(a). the leak repair months in Sec.
requirements in 63.104(c)(1)(iii)
Sec. 63.104(d) does not apply.
and (e), and the Monitoring shall
recordkeeping and be no less
reporting frequent than
requirements in quarterly;
Sec. 63.104(f); ii. The reference
or in Sec.
63.104(f)(1) to
record retention
requirements in
Sec.
63.103(c)(1) does
not apply.
Records must be
retained as
specified in Sec.
Sec.
63.10(b)(1) and
63.11501(c); and
iii. The reference
in Sec.
63.104(f)(2) to
``the next semi-
annual periodic
report required
by Sec.
63.152(c)'' means
the next semi-
annual compliance
report required
by Sec.
63.11501(f).
b. Comply with the i. Not applicable.
heat exchange
system
requirements in
Sec. 63.104(b)
and the
requirements
referenced
therein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11501(a), you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) as shown in the following table.
Table 9 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject VVVVVV? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), Applicability............. Yes..................
(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12)
(b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(5), (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), Reserved.................. No...................
(c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2.............................. Definitions............... Yes..................
63.3.............................. Units and Abbreviations... Yes..................
63.4.............................. Prohibited Activities and Yes..................
Circumvention.
63.5.............................. Preconstruction Review and Yes..................
Notification Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), Compliance with Standards Yes..................
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), and Maintenance
(e)(1)(iii), (g), (i), (j). Requirements.
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), Reserved.................. No...................
(h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).
63.6 (e)(1)(i) and (ii), (e)(3), SSM Requirements.......... No...................
and (f)(1).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)- .......................... No................... Subpart VVVVVV does not
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9). include opacity or
visible emissions (VE)
standards or require a
continuous opacity
monitoring system
(COMS).
63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4), (c), Performance Testing Yes..................
(e)(4), and (f)-(h). Requirements.
63.7(a)(2), (b), (d), (e)(1)-(3).. Performance Testing Yes/No............... Requirements apply if
Schedule, Notification of conducting test for
Performance Test, metal HAP control;
Performance Testing requirements in Sec.
Facilities, and Conduct Sec. 63.997(c)(1),
of Performance Tests. (d), (e), and
63.999(a)(1) apply, as
referenced in Sec.
63.11496(g), if
conducting test for
organic HAP or hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP
control device.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Requirements... Yes.................. References to SSM in Sec.
(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5). 63.8(c) do not apply.
63.8(a)(2)........................ Monitoring Requirements... No...................
63.8(a)(3)........................ Reserved.................. No...................
63.8(c)(4)........................ .......................... No................... Continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS)
requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subparts SS and
FFFF are referenced from
Sec. 63.11496.
63.8(c)(5)........................ .......................... No................... Subpart VVVVVV does not
require COMS.
[[Page 56055]]
63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e), .......................... Yes.................. Requirements apply only
(f)(6). if you use a continuous
emission monitoring
system (CEMS) to
demonstrate compliance
with the alternative
standard in Sec.
63.11496(e). References
to SSM in Sec. 63.8(d)
do not apply.
63.8(g)(1)-(g)(4)................. .......................... Yes.................. Data reduction
requirements apply only
if you use CEMS to
demonstrate compliance
with alternative
standard in Sec.
63.11496(e). COMS
requirements do not
apply. Requirement in
Sec. 63.8(g)(2) does
not apply because data
reduction for CEMS are
specified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFF.
63.8(g)(5)........................ .......................... No................... Data reduction
requirements for CEMS
are specified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF,
as referenced from Sec.
63.11496. CPMS
requirements are
specified in 40 CFR part
63, subparts SS and
FFFF, as referenced from
Sec. 63.11496.
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), Notification Requirements. Yes..................
(b)(5), (c), (d), (e), (i).
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)................ Reserved.................. No...................
63.9(f)........................... .......................... No................... Subpart VVVVVV does not
contain opacity or VE
limits.
63.9(g)........................... .......................... Yes.................. Additional notification
requirement applies only
if you use CEMS to
demonstrate compliance
with alternative
standard in Sec.
63.11496(e).
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5)-(h)(6).. .......................... Yes.................. Except subpart VVVVVV
does not contain opacity
or VE limits.
63.9(j)........................... Change in Information No................... Notification of process
Already Provided. changes that affect a
compliance determination
are required in Sec.
63.11501(d)(4).
63.10(a).......................... Recordkeeping Requirements Yes..................
63.10(b)(1)....................... .......................... Yes..................
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v).......... .......................... Yes.................. Any references to SSM do
not apply.
63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), (xi), (xiii) .......................... Yes.................. Apply only if you use
CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with
alternative standard in
Sec. 63.11496(e).
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(b)(2)(ix), .......................... Yes..................
(b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv).
63.10(b)(3)....................... .......................... Yes..................
63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(6), .......................... Yes.................. Apply only if you use
(c)(13)-(c)(14). CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with
alternative standard in
Sec. 63.11496(e).
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8), (c)(10)- .......................... Yes.................. Any reference to SSM does
(c)(12), (c)(15). not apply.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)........ Reserved.................. No...................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(4), Reporting Requirements.... Yes..................
(e)(1), (e)(2), (f).
63.10(d)(3)....................... .......................... No................... Subpart VVVVVV does not
include opacity or VE
limits.
63.10(d)(5)....................... .......................... No...................
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)................ .......................... Yes.................. Apply only if you use
CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with
alternative standard in
Sec. 63.11496(e).
63.10(e)(3)....................... .......................... Yes..................
63.10(e)(4)....................... .......................... No................... Subpart VVVVVV does not
include opacity or VE
limits.
63.11............................. Control Device Yes..................
Requirements.
63.12............................. State Authorities and Yes..................
Delegations.
63.13............................. Addresses................. Yes..................
63.14............................. Incorporations by Yes..................
Reference.
63.15............................. Availability of Yes..................
Information and
Confidentiality.
63.16............................. Performance Track Yes..................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56056]]
[FR Doc. E9-25576 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P