[Federal Register: April 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19075-19103]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap03-17]
[[Page 19075]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric
Acid Production; Final Rule
[[Page 19076]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0057; FRL-7460-1]
RIN 2060-AH75
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Hydrochloric Acid Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid (HCl)
production facilities, including HCl production at fume silica
facilities. The EPA has identified hydrochloric acid production
facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
These standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) by requiring all such major sources to meet HAP emission
standards and implement work practice standards that reflect the
application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The
primary HAP that will be controlled with this action is hydrochloric
acid. This HAP is associated with a variety of adverse health effects
including chronic health disorders (for example, effects on the central
nervous system, blood, and heart) and acute health disorders (for
example, irritation of eyes, throat, and mucous membranes and damage to
the liver and kidneys).
EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective April 17, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Docket. All information considered by the EPA in developing
the final rule, including public comments on the proposed rule and
other information developed by the EPA in addressing those comments
since proposal, is located in Public Docket No. OAR-2002-0057 at the
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket is located at the above address in Room B102, and may be
inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local
regulatory agency representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office
representative. For information concerning analyses performed in
developing the final rule, contact Mr. William Maxwell, Combustion
Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5430;
fax number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address:
maxwell.bill@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC a NAICS b Regulated Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... 2819 325188 Hydrochloric Acid Production.
2821 325211
2869 325199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.8985 of the
final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult your State or local agency (or
EPA Regional Office) described in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for
the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. You may access the Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic copy of the
final rule will also be available on the worldwide web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
the final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of the
final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before
June 16, 2003. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2)of the CAA, the
requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce
these requirements.
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Final Rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
[[Page 19077]]
A. Who Is Subject to the Final Rule?
B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions, and What Are the
Emissions?
C. What Is the Affected Source?
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards?
E. What Are the Performance Testing, Initial Compliance, and
Continuous Compliance Requirements?
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
III. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal
A. What Sources Are Subject to MACT?
B. How Did the EPA Determine MACT?
C. What Are the Performance Testing and Other Compliance
Provisions?
IV. Summary of the Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Hydrochloric
acid production and fume silica production were listed as source
categories under the production of inorganic chemicals group on EPA's
initial list of major source categories published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).\1\ On September 18, 2001, we
combined these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the
production of inorganic chemicals group and renamed the source category
as HCl production (66 FR 48174). The next revision to the source
category list will reflect this change. Major sources of HAP are those
that have the potential to emit greater than 9 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any
combination of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Later listing notices (e.g., 66 FR 8220) refer to the source
category as ``fumed'' silica.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory for which the
Administrator has emissions information (or the best-performing five
sources for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain
emissions information for categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on consideration of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Final Rule?
Prior to proposal, we met with industry representatives once to
discuss the data and information used to develop the proposed
standards. In addition, these and other potential stakeholders,
including equipment vendors, environmental groups, and the general
public, had opportunity to comment on the proposed standards.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on
September 18, 2001 (66 FR 48174). The preamble to the proposed rule
discussed the availability of technical support documents, which
described in detail the information gathered during the standards
development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.
We received 22 public comment letters on the proposed rule. The
commenters represent the following affiliations: HCl producers,
industrial trade associations, and one group of citizens. In the post-
proposal period, we met with industry representatives to discuss their
concerns. Meeting records are found in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. All
of the comments have been carefully considered, and, where appropriate,
changes have been made for the final rule.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Who Is Subject to the Final Rule?
The final rule covers HCl production located at plant sites that
are major sources of HAP emissions. The HCl production facility is the
basic unit defined in the final rule. Specifically, the final rule
defines an HCl production facility as the collection of unit operations
and equipment associated with the production of liquid HCl product.
Therefore, a plant site could have several separate and distinct HCl
production facilities. However, as discussed more in subsection C of
this section, the affected source includes all HCl production
facilities at the same site.
There are several characteristics that define an HCl production
facility and make the facility subject to the final rule that require
explanation. First, the facility must produce a liquid HCl product with
a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater during its normal
operations. Facilities that produce only low concentration acid, and
facilities that produce low concentration acid and only occasionally
produce 30 weight percent acid, are not subject. Second, the liquid HCl
must be produced by absorbing gaseous HCl into either water or an
aqueous HCl solution. Production of an anhydrous HCl product is not
covered by the final rule. Also, production of a liquid HCl product by
a chemical reaction that occurs in the liquid phase, or any other
process that does not involve the absorption of gaseous HCl into water
or aqueous HCl, is not covered.
There are numerous types of processes that produce a gaseous stream
containing HCl that is the starting point for an HCl facility
(including fume silica production). However, the final rule is blind to
the type of process that generates the HCl, as an HCl production
facility begins at the point where the
[[Page 19078]]
stream containing HCl enters the absorber. Accordingly, it does not
matter if the gaseous stream containing HCl is a by-product or even a
waste-product. If the gaseous stream is used to produce 30 weight
percent or greater liquid HCl product, it is a facility that is subject
to the final rule.
The final rule clearly defines the boundaries of an HCl production
facility. As noted above, an HCl production facility begins at the
point where a gaseous stream containing HCl enters the absorber. The
HCl production facility includes all HCl storage tanks that contain a
liquid HCl product that is produced in the HCl production unit. The HCl
production facility also includes all HCl transfer operations that load
the HCl product produced in the HCl production unit into a tank truck,
rail car, ship, or barge, and for which loading liquid HCl is the
predominant use. The predominant use of a transfer rack is the material
that is loaded by the transfer rack in the greatest amount. The HCl
production facility also includes the piping and other equipment in HCl
service used to transfer the liquid HCl product from the HCl production
unit to the HCl storage tanks and/or HCl transfer operations. The HCl
production facility ends at the point where the liquid HCl product
produced in the HCl production unit is loaded into a tank truck, rail
car, ship, or barge, at the point the HCl product enters another
process on the plant site, or at the point the HCl product leaves the
plant site via pipeline.
Please note that what happens to the liquid HCl product after it is
produced is not relevant in determining the applicability of the final
rule. While there are emission limitations for storage tanks and
transfer operations, these operations do not have to be present for an
HCl production facility to be subject to the final rule. Whether the
HCl produced is used onsite, piped offsite, or loaded into railcars,
tank trucks, ships, or barges has no bearing on whether the HCl
production facility is subject.
The final rule does exclude HCl production facilities under certain
circumstances. First, an HCl production facility is not subject to the
final rule if all of the gaseous streams containing HCl and chlorine
(Cl2) from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl
transfer operations are recycled or routed to another process prior to
being discharged to the atmosphere. Also, an HCl production facility is
not subject to the final rule if it produces HCl through the direct
synthesis of Cl2 and hydrogen and is part of a chlor-alkali
plant; or if it is a research and development facility.
In addition, the final rule excludes certain HCl production
facilities that are part of other source categories where the emissions
are subject to one of the following federal standards: Pulp and Paper
Industry NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart S), Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart CCC), Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM), Hazardous Waste Combustors NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE), Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (40 CFR part 264, subpart O--Incinerators, section
264.343(b)), and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (40 CFR part
266, subpart H--Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, section 266.107).
Regulatory overlap between the final rule and the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) is slightly more complicated. In general, the HON only
covers emissions of organic HAP, which obviously excludes HCl and
Cl2. The exception to this is if a halogenated stream (which
is defined as a stream with a mass emission rate of halogen atoms
contained in organic compounds of 0.45 kilograms per hour or greater)
is routed to an incinerator or other combustion device to control the
organic HAP, the halogens leaving the incinerator are required to be
reduced by 99 percent. Therefore, if in a HON unit, a chlorinated
organic compound is sent to an incinerator and the outlet stream (which
would contain HCl) is then routed through an absorber to produce liquid
HCl, the resulting HCl emissions from the absorber would be subject to
40 CFR 63.113(c) of the HON, which requires a 99 percent reduction in
HCl emissions. These HCl production units are exempted from the HCl
Production NESHAP, since the emissions are subject to the HON.
However, HCl gas is often produced as a by-product of an organic
chemical in a unit that is subject to the HON. In this situation, the
HCl emissions are not covered by the HON because they are not formed in
an incinerator burning a halogenated stream. If this vent stream
containing HCl is routed to an absorber and liquid HCl is produced,
then it is an HCl production facility and is subject to the final rule
if it meets the other applicability requirements. Therefore, in this
situation the result could be that the same equipment, and even the
same emission stream, is subject to two MACT standards (the organic HAP
subject to the HON and the HCl and Cl2 subject to the HCl
NESHAP). In other words, where a liquid HCl product is produced as a
by-product in a HON unit, the HCl Production NESHAP reaches into the
HON unit to require control of the HCl and Cl2 emissions.
B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions, and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary HAP known to be released from HCl production is HCl.
Chlorine may also be emitted from HCl production. These potential
emission sources include process vents, storage tanks, transfer
operations, equipment leaks, and wastewater.
1. Types of Emission Sources
Most HCl production processes begin with a gaseous stream
containing HCl. The stream can be a by-product stream from another
process, an outlet stream from a combustion device that is treating
chlorinated organic compounds, or a stream from a direct synthesis
reaction furnace where hydrogen and Cl2 are burned. No
matter the origin of the stream containing HCl, the process from that
point forward is basically the same. The gaseous stream containing HCl
is routed to an HCl recovery absorption column, where the HCl is
absorbed into either water or dilute HCl. The liquid leaving this
column contains concentrated HCl.
The gaseous stream leaving the absorption column contains HCl that
was not absorbed into the liquid in the tower and any Cl2
present in the inlet stream. This outlet stream may be routed (or
recycled) to another process, in which case it is no longer part of the
HCl production affected source. However, if the outlet stream is
directly discharged to the atmosphere or if it is routed through other
recovery/control devices before being discharged to the atmosphere, it
is considered an HCl process vent from an HCl production facility.
If the liquid HCl leaving the absorption tower is routed to an HCl
storage tank, there is the potential for HCl emissions from the tank.
The storage tanks are typically atmospheric storage tanks, and working
loss emissions will occur as the tank is filled and emptied. While less
significant, there are also breathing losses from atmospheric
temperature and pressure changes. There is also the potential for
emissions when HCl is loaded from a storage tank to a tank truck, rail
car, ship, or barge. Plants often reduce HCl emissions from HCl storage
tanks and HCl transfer operations by using a scrubber.
Another potential source of HCl emissions is fugitive losses from
equipment leaks. Owners and operators of HCl production processes
presumably have an incentive to identify and repair
[[Page 19079]]
equipment leaks of HCl and Cl2 because of their highly
corrosive nature. The leaks can be easily identified, as the presence
of ambient moisture (humidity) results in rapid corrosion on or around
leaking equipment components.
The bottoms from scrubbers used to reduce HCl and Cl2
emissions from HCl process vents, HCl storage vessels, and HCl transfer
operations are typically routed to wastewater treatment systems. In
most cases, the HCl or Cl2 has been chemically converted in
the scrubber to sodium hypochlorite (bleach). Any residual
Cl2 or HCl would be quite small. We estimate that wastewater
emissions represent less than 1 percent of total emissions from the
source category. Therefore, we believe that wastewater streams do not
represent a significant potential source of emissions.
2. Estimated Emissions
We have calculated the nationwide baseline emissions for each of
the HCl production facility emission sources. Hydrochloric acid process
vents emit a total of 2,240 Mg/yr (2,470 tpy) of combined HCl (1,600
Mg/yr; 1,770 tpy) and Cl2 (640 Mg/yr; 700 tpy) emissions.
Hydrochloric acid storage tanks emit 230 Mg/yr (260 tpy) of HCl, HCl
transfer operations emit 27 Mg/yr (30 tpy) of HCl, leaking equipment
emits 410 Mg/yr (450 tpy) of HCl, and wastewater emits 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
HCl. Total baseline HAP emissions from the industry are 2,910 Mg/yr
(3,220 tpy).
C. What Is the Affected Source?
The final rule defines the affected source as the group of one or
more HCl production facilities at a plant site that are subject to the
final rule, and all associated wastewater operations. The affected
source contains emission streams from the following: HCl process vents,
HCl storage tanks, HCl transfer operations, leaks from equipment in
HCl/Cl2 service, and HCl wastewater operations. However,
there are no emission limitations or other requirements for HCl
wastewater operations in the final rule.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?
Existing affected sources must reduce HCl and Cl2
emissions from each HCl process vent by 99 percent or to outlet
concentrations of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) HCl and 100
ppmv Cl2, determined using EPA Test Method 26A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. New sources must reduce HCl and Cl2
emissions from each HCl process vent by 99.4 and 99.8 percent,
respectively, or to outlet concentrations of 12 ppmv HCl and 20 ppmv
Cl2. The final rule also requires that owners or operators
establish site-specific operating limits for each control device, based
on monitored parameters and levels established during the performance
test. For example, if you use a caustic scrubber to meet the emission
limits, you must maintain the daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow
rate above the minimum value established during the performance test.
You also must maintain the daily average scrubber effluent pH within
the operating range value established during the performance test.
For each storage tank and transfer operation at an existing
affected source, HCl emissions must be reduced by 99 percent or to an
outlet concentration of 120 ppmv; the operating limits are the same as
for process vents. There are no Cl2 emissions from these
sources. For each storage tank at a new affected source, HCl emissions
must be reduced by 99.9 percent or to an outlet concentration of 12
ppmv. For each transfer operation at a new affected source, HCl
emissions must be reduced by 99 percent or to an outlet concentration
of 120 ppmv. Emission streams from the following types of storage tanks
and transfer operations are exempt from these emission limitations: (1)
Storage tanks that never store liquid HCl product with a concentration
of 30 weight percent or greater, and (2) transfer operations that never
load liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or
greater.
For leaking equipment, the final rule includes a work practice
standard. We require you to prepare, and at all times operate according
to, an equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan that describes
in detail the measures that will be put in place to control leaking
equipment emissions at the facility. You are required to submit the
LDAR plan to the Administrator. You are also required to certify in
your Notification of Compliance Status that you have developed and
implemented the LDAR plan and submitted the plan to the Administrator.
There are no emission limitations or work practice standards for
HCl wastewater operations.
E. What Are the Performance Testing, Initial Compliance, and Continuous
Compliance Requirements?
For HCl process vents at new and existing affected sources, you are
required to demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance
test that demonstrates that the emission limitations are being met. You
are required to conduct subsequent performance tests on the earlier of
your title V operating permit renewal or within 5 years of issuance of
your title V permit.
You must also establish site-specific operating limits based on
control device parameters. These operating limits will be established
for each parameter based on monitoring conducted during the performance
test. Specifically for water or caustic scrubbers, which we believe
will be the most commonly used control device, the final rule requires
that you establish operating limits for pH of the scrubber effluent and
the scrubber liquid inlet flow rate. For any other type of control
device, you are required to establish the operating limits based on a
site-specific monitoring plan that identifies appropriate parameters.
Continuous compliance will be demonstrated by these monitored
parameters staying within the operating limits.
For HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations at new and
existing affected sources, you are required to demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting a performance test that demonstrates that the
emission limitations are being met. Alternatively, in lieu of
conducting initial or subsequent performance tests for HCl storage
tanks and HCl transfer operations that are not routed to a control
device that also controls HCl process vent emissions or any other
continuous vent stream, you may conduct a design evaluation which
demonstrates that the control technology being used achieves the
required control efficiency when a liquid HCl product with a
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being loaded into the
storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge. The schedule
for subsequent performance tests and the operating limits for new and
existing HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations are the same as
those for HCl process vents.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The final rule requires owners or operators of affected sources to
submit the following notifications and reports:
[sbull] Initial Notification.
[sbull] Notification of Intent to Conduct a Performance Test.
[sbull] Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS).
[sbull] Compliance Reports.
[sbull] Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Reports.
The final rule requires that each owner or operator maintain records of
reported
[[Page 19080]]
information and other information necessary to document compliance (for
example, records related to malfunctions, records that show continuous
compliance with emission limits) for 5 years.
For the Initial Notification, the final rule requires that each
owner or operator notify us that his or her facility is subject to the
HCl Production NESHAP and that he or she provide specified basic
information about their facility. For new or reconstructed sources,
this notification (or an application for construction or
reconstruction) would be required to be submitted no later than 120
calendar days after the facility becomes subject to this subpart. For
existing sources that are operating at this time, the Initial
Notification would be due August 15, 2003.
For the Notification of Intent report, the final rule requires that
each owner or operator notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60 days before the performance test is
scheduled to begin.
For each new or existing HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, and
HCl transfer operation at an affected source, the final rule requires a
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl concentration
limit. This test must be conducted within 180 days of the compliance
date for new and existing sources. The final rule requires that the
NOCS report be submitted within 60 days of completion of the
performance test. A certified notification of compliance that states
the compliance status of the facility, along with supporting
information (e.g., performance test methods and results, description of
air pollution control equipment, and operating parameter values and
ranges), must be submitted as part of the NOCS.
For the Compliance Report, the final rule requires that facilities
subject to control requirements under the final rule report on
continued compliance with the emission limits and operating limits
semi-annually. Specifically, the compliance report must contain the
following information:
[sbull] Company name and address.
[sbull] Statement certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
[sbull] Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
[sbull] Information on actions taken for any startups, shutdowns,
or malfunctions that were consistent with your SSM plan.
[sbull] If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
[sbull] If there were no periods during which the continuous
monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control, as specified in the
monitoring plan, a statement that there were no periods during which
the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
You will demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice
standards for leaking equipment by certifying that you have developed
and implemented a LDAR plan and submitted the plan to the
Administrator. Your semiannual compliance report will verify your
continued use of the plan and contain information on instances where
you deviated from the plan and the corrective actions taken.
Finally, you must submit an immediate SSM report if you have taken
an action that is not consistent with the facility's SSM plan. This
report must describe actions taken for the event and contain the
information in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
III. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal
This section includes discussion of significant comments on the
proposed rule, particularly where we have made changes to address those
comments in the final rule. These changes may be separated into three
basic categories: applicability, the MACT determination, and
performance testing and compliance. This section is organized according
to these three topic areas. For a complete summary of all the comments
received on the proposed rule and our responses to them, refer to the
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
the Hydrochloric Acid Production Industry: Summary of Public Comments
and Responses'' in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. The docket also
contains the actual comment letters and supporting documentation
developed for the final rule.
A. What Sources are Subject to MACT?
The proposed rule indicated that HCl production facilities at major
sources were subject to the final rule. An HCl production facility was
defined as the ``collection of equipment used to produce, store, and
transfer for shipping liquid HCl product at a concentration of 10
percent by weight or greater.''
There were numerous comments provided on these applicability
provisions. First, several commenters were confused by the apparent
contradiction between the definition of an HCl production facility in
the proposed rule and the description in the preamble. The proposed
rule language stated that a facility must produce, store, AND transfer
HCl in order to be considered an HCl production facility, while the
preamble indicated that production of HCl is the only required element
for a collection of equipment be considered an HCl production facility.
A few commenters argued that all three elements should be necessary for
a process to be an HCl production facility, but most only requested
clarification. Our intent was that described in the proposed preamble--
that is, a facility only needs to produce liquid HCl product to be
considered an HCl production facility. The language in the final rule
is clear that processes that produce liquid HCl product are HCl
production facilities and subject to the final rule (provided that
criteria related to the concentration of HCl in the liquid product and
the level of production are met), whether or not they store and
transfer the liquid HCl.
As discussed at length in the proposed preamble, it was our intent
to separate commercial-level HCl production, which we believe should be
subject to the final rule, from incidental production, which we do not
believe should be subject. Several comments were received that helped
us make this distinction. First, numerous commenters requested that the
EPA raise the minimum HCl concentration for an HCl production facility
from 10 weight percent to a level that better represents commercial
production of HCl. The commenters stated that liquid HCl is commonly
produced for commerce at 20[deg] to 22[deg] Baume (B[eacute]) acid
strength (31.45 to 35.2 weight percent). However, one commenter's HCl
production facility occasionally produces liquid HCl product less that
20 weight percent. Additionally, the commenters made the argument that
emissions resulting from a 10 percent HCl product were less, even
without controls, than the proposed emission limitations. Specifically,
they pointed out that the equilibrium HCl vapor concentration for a 10
weight percent HCl liquid (10.7 ppmv at 25[deg]C) is lower than the
proposed emission limitation for process vents, storage tanks, and
transfer operations (12 ppmv).
Upon consideration of these comments and the supporting
information, we changed the minimum HCl concentration to 30 weight
percent. The final rule states that an HCl production facility that
produces a liquid HCl product at a concentration of 30 weight percent
or greater is subject to the final rule. That means that this unit is
subject at all times, even those times when a liquid HCl product of a
[[Page 19081]]
lower concentration is being produced. Therefore, the final rule will
cover facilities like the one pointed out by the commenter that
occasionally produce liquid HCl product at concentrations less than 30
percent, even when those lower concentration products are being
produced.
However, we wanted to ensure that facilities that primarily produce
lower concentration liquid HCl products not be subject to the final
rule. Therefore, we added a statement in 40 CFR 63.8985(a) that the
final rule does not cover HCl production facilities that only
occasionally produce liquid HCl products at a concentration of 30
weight percent or greater. We did not, however, include a specific
definition of what constitutes occasional production. If a facility
produces liquid HCl with a concentration of 30 weight percent or
greater during its normal operations, this would not be considered
occasional production.
Commenters also suggested facility-wide exemptions based on de
minimis annual emissions. Commenters provided several exemption levels
based on emissions, from 1.8 kilograms per hour to 10 Mg per year.
Other commenters believed that an exemption based on production was the
appropriate method to eliminate burdensome compliance requirements for
facilities with very low HAP emissions. The recommended exemption
production levels ranged from 1 Mg per year to 1 gigagram per year.
We believe that, with the 30 weight percent criteria, the final
rule should not cover incidental production of HCl. Consequently, we
have not added either an emissions-based exemption or a production-
based exemption to the final rule.
Commenters also requested that the we clearly delineate where the
HCl production facility ends and HCl consumption begins so as not to
include equipment unrelated to the production of HCl. While the
proposed rule was not specific as to the beginning of an HCl production
facility, the proposed preamble did indicate that an HCl production
facility begins at the point where the gaseous stream containing HCl
enters the absorber. The commenters agreed with this concept and asked
that we directly incorporate it into the final rule, which we did.
Most of the problems cited by commenters related to the end of the
HCl production facility were remote storage tanks that are dedicated to
another process or to wastewater treatment. There was also concern
expressed about whether off-site HCl storage tanks storing HCl produced
in a subject unit would be subject to the final rule. One suggestion
was that the HCl production facility include only those tanks and
transfer operations on the site that are directly connected to the
production unit. Another suggestion was to only include the first
storage tank after the absorber production unit and the first transfer
rack. Other commenters pointed out that the proposed rule would also
cover HCl storage tanks and transfer operations that handled purchased
HCl that was not even produced in the on-site HCl production facility.
In general, we agree with the commenters on this topic. We believe
it is practical that only the primary storage tanks and transfer
operations that are storing and loading HCl produced at the site should
be subject to the final rule. However, we did not totally agree with
either of the suggestions provided by the commenters. In the final
rule, we specify that the HCl production facility includes the
production unit and all storage tanks that contain liquid HCl product
that is produced in the HCl production unit, along with all transfer
operations that load HCl product produced in the HCl production unit.
Further, it also specifies that the piping and other equipment used to
transfer liquid HCl product from the HCl production unit to the storage
tanks and/or transfer operations is included in the HCl production
facility. The final rule clarifies that the HCl production facility
ends at the point that the liquid HCl product produced in the HCl
production unit either leaves the plant site via a tank truck, rail
car, ship, barge, or pipeline, or enters another process on the plant
site. However, we recognized that this still was not totally clear
regarding remote storage tanks, so we specifically added exemptions for
HCl storage tanks that are dedicated feedstock tanks for other
processes and storage tanks which store HCl dedicated for use in
wastewater treatment.
Commenters also pointed out that the proposed preamble was clear
that the type of process covered by the final rule was one that routes
a gaseous stream that contains HCl to an absorber. They asked that this
language, which was not included in the proposed rule, be added to the
final rule. The commenters acknowledged that there are other methods of
producing liquid HCl product, but believe that they should not be
covered by the final rule because they were not considered in the final
rule development. We agreed and made changes in accordance. These
changes include the addition of a definition of HCl production unit
that only includes an absorber or other vessel in which a liquid HCl
product is manufactured by absorbing gaseous HCl into either water or
an aqueous HCl solution and the change cited above related to the
beginning of an HCl production facility.
Commenters requested that facilities that produce liquid HCl only
for on-site usage be exempted. We certainly support the recycling and
re-use of potential waste materials, including HCl. Further, we are
aware that much of the HCl produced is used by other processes on the
plant site. However, we do not see a distinction between these
processes and other processes where the HCl product is truly sold. We
believe an exemption for on-site use would unfairly favor large
integrated facilities. Consider two similar HCl processes with similar
equipment, similar production capacities, and similar emissions
potential. We do not believe that distinguishing between these
processes based on where the HCl is consumed is warranted.
Even with the extensive discussions in the proposed preamble
related to how the applicability is blind to the type of process that
generates the anhydrous HCl stream that forms the feed stream for the
HCl production facility, some commenters still called for exemptions
for processes where HCl is not the primary product. The primary product
concept is not relevant to the final rule, as the only processes that
are subject to the final rule are those that intentionally manufacture
liquid HCl product. There are a variety of types of processes that
generate HCl-containing gas streams that provide the feed to the HCl
production unit, and we recognized that this gaseous HCl is often a by-
product. However, at the point an owner or operator takes this stream
and manufactures a commercial level (i.e., 30 weight percent or
greater) liquid HCl product, we maintain that HCl is the intended
product for that unit. Therefore, the process that creates the
anhydrous HCl stream feeding the HCl production facility is not
relevant in most situations.
The only time that the up-stream process is relevant is when it is
subject to a Federal regulation that also regulates the HCl and
Cl2 emissions from the downstream HCl production facility.
At proposal, we identified several of these situations and specifically
exempted the HCl production facilities subject to these other
standards. While all commenters applauded this concept, they did not
feel that we had gone far enough with these exemptions. Some commenters
cited other specific regulations that should be listed, while others
requested
[[Page 19082]]
that we broaden the exemption to include facilities subject to any
other NESHAP, whether it is already promulgated or yet to be
promulgated, along with any facility that is subject to any federally
enforceable permit that requires 95 percent reduction or greater.
Just like the commenters, we are interested in avoiding overlapping
situations where a process that produces HCl might be subject to more
than one Federal regulation. Based on the comments received, we have
added exemptions for processes subject to the Pharmaceutical MACT (40
CFR 63, subpart GGG) and 40 CFR 63.994 of subpart SS. We have also
expanded the exemption to include any process required by another rule
to comply with 40 CFR 63.113(c) of the HON. In addition, according to
our proposed decision not to regulate Cl2 and HCl emissions
from chlorine production (67 FR 44713; July 3, 2002), we consider
direct synthesis HCl production units directly associated with chlor-
alkali facilities to be part of the chlor-alkali facilities. Therefore,
an exemption has been added in the final rule to exempt direct
synthesis HCl production processes that are part of chlor-alkali
facilities; this exemption does not extend to HCl production facilities
that are co-located with chlor-alkali facilities but are not direct
synthesis units directly associated with chlor-alkali facilities. So,
we exempted all the specific situations raised by commenters. However,
we cannot include a generic exemption for any other NESHAP or any
federally enforceable permit. The statutory requirements in CAA section
112(d) are prescriptive regarding the level of control required by MACT
standards, and we could not be assured that these other requirements
would meet the minimum requirements for this source category. We will
consider such situations on a case by case (i.e., on a source-specific)
basis under a request for an alternative non-opacity emission standard
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(g).
As part of our consideration of overlapping requirements, we
reviewed the situation with the HON. The proposed rule exempted HCl
production units located after an incinerator of a HON unit where the
HCl and Cl2 emissions are subject to 40 CFR 63.113(c).
However, we did not exempt situations where gaseous HCl is produced as
a by-product in a HON unit and then routed to an absorber to produce
liquid HCl. In these by-product situations, the HCl and Cl2
emissions are not covered by the HON. While we agree that the situation
where the same equipment and the same emission stream could be subject
to both the HON and the HCl Production NESHAP is not ideal, we believe
that these inorganic emissions should be addressed under the final rule
in the same manner that comparable non-HON units are addressed.
Therefore, the final rule continues to reach into the HON to cover
those inorganic emissions from liquid HCl production.
Several commenters requested that the EPA exempt storage tanks that
are smaller than a certain capacity. The commenters pointed out that
the potential emissions from small storage tanks are low while the
control costs are very high. Commenters suggestions for a minimum
capacity ranged from 15,000 to 20,000 gallons. One commenter further
requested an exemption for all portable storage containers (e.g.,
drums, tank trucks, railcars). Another commenter suggested that tank
capacity and HCl vapor pressure be used together to determine which
storage tanks should be exempt.
We understand the commenters' concern about the cost of controlling
emissions from small storage tanks. However, we believe that small
storage tanks are not likely to be covered by the final rule given the
other changes that we have made which were based on comments received.
We have exempted storage tanks that never store liquid HCl product with
a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater. We have also defined
the HCl production facility such that storage tanks that store HCl for
use in wastewater treatment or as feedstock for another process are not
part of the HCl production facility. Therefore, we have not added an
exemption for small storage tanks.
B. How Did the EPA Determine MACT?
1. Data Used To Determine MACT
Many commenters stated that the EPA did not use data that was truly
representative of the sources in the source category when determining
the MACT emission limitations. The commenters believed that the
database used to prepare the proposed rule contained facilities that
potentially would not be subject to the final rule and did not contain
many facilities that potentially would be subject to the final rule.
This criticism included the estimate of the number of facilities
potentially subject to the final rule, but was more focused on the data
used to establish MACT.
Commenters stated the number of sources subject to the final rule
would likely be much greater than the 64 plant sites that we identified
as potentially subject at proposal. One commenter estimated that the
number of plant sites could be as high as 300.
The commenters were especially concerned with the
representativeness of the data set used to establish the MACT emission
limits. They maintained that the lack of representativeness of the
source category resulted in proposed emission limitations that were not
adequately justified for the HCl production source category, and that
the use of more representative data could change the MACT
determination. A few of the commenters specifically requested that we
gather data from a more representative group of potentially affected
facilities and re-calculate the MACT floor. One commenter even went so
far as to state that we should withdraw the proposed rule and re-
propose it after properly surveying the industry and re-calculating the
MACT floor based on accurate data.
First, we will briefly review the process used to obtain the
information for the HCl production source category, followed by
responses to the specific issues raised by the commenters.
In creating our list of sources in the HCl production source
category, we consulted reliable and well-respected sources of
information on the chemical industry. We removed plant sites from the
original list that we believed would be subject to other MACT standards
or Federal regulations. There were also a few plants that we were aware
of through contacts with State agencies that were not on the original
list, so they were added. That resulted in the 64 plants identified at
proposal. We recognized the special difficulty in identifying all HCl
production facilities, since HCl is often produced from by-product
streams only for internal uses, and considered that our list may not
have been comprehensive. Therefore, during a meeting held on February
28, 2001 with the primary trade organization for the HCl production
industry, we specifically requested assistance in improving our initial
list of potentially subject plant sites. However, no additional
information resulted from this request for assistance.
While commenters claim that there could be potentially two or three
times more plant sites subject to the HCl Production NESHAP than we
originally estimated, there was little actual information provided to
support this claim. Where commenters provided specific plant names and
locations, we adjusted the list of plant sites. We also identified a
few inconsistencies and overlaps from our original list. The result was
that the revised list of
[[Page 19083]]
potentially subject facilities contains 65 plant sites.
As was documented in several items in the docket, our information
gathering approach for this source category was to obtain available
information from State/local agencies in States where HCl production
facilities are located. That resulted in data for 24 HCl production
facilities at 19 plant sites in 5 States. In addition, we had
information from site visits to 6 additional HCl production facilities
at 5 more plant sites, meaning that the MACT database relied upon for
the proposed rule contained information representing 30 HCl production
facilities at 24 plant sites in 9 States. We believe that this was a
reasonable approach to obtain information for this industry.
Some commenters requested that we distribute a questionnaire under
our CAA section 114 authority to accurately reflect the source
category. However, the commenters did not provide a list of plants to
whom this questionnaire should be sent to ensure that the data were
more representative than the data set we obtained from State agency
files. Some commenters, however, did offer to provide additional
information for their HCl production facilities, which could have
resulted in data for a few additional processes. However, we concluded
that the original data set was adequate to determine MACT and did not
feel it was necessary to burden the industry with a data collection
request.
Commenters also complained that many of the plants considered in
the MACT floor analysis were actually plants that are not in the source
category. These commenters are correct, in part, in that we did utilize
data from two plants that we had removed from the original list because
we presumed that these HCl production processes were, or would be,
subject to another MACT standard. To eliminate this inconsistency, we
have removed these two facilities from the MACT analysis. We also
adjusted the data set based on all specific comments received.
Therefore, the revised MACT floor analysis is based on facilities that,
to the best of our knowledge, are in the source category. For example,
we have removed from the MACT floor analysis all HCl production
facilities that produce HCl via direct synthesis at chlor-alkali
facilities, and we have kept in the MACT floor those HCl production
facilities that are co-located with chlor-alkali facilities but are not
part of a chlor-alkali facility and produce HCl through some other
process.
We would point out that while we did not agree with the commenters
regarding the representativeness and adequacy of our MACT database, and
we did not undertake an additional data gathering effort after
proposal, we did revise our MACT analysis to address many of the other
issues raised by commenters regarding the determination of the emission
limitations. These are discussed in the next sections.
2. MACT Floor Determination
There were a few issues raised related to the MACT floor analysis.
First, commenters believed that the floor should have been based on the
top 12 percent of the facilities instead of the top 5 facilities, since
there are more than 30 facilities in the category. Commenters also
believed that the floor should have been calculated based on the mean
and not the median. In addition, commenters objected to how we handled
control efficiencies reported as 99 percent (in the floor
analysis, units that reported 99 percent efficiency were
excluded from the floor calculation and the remaining facilities in the
top 5 of the reporting facilities were used to determine the floor) and
they pointed out that we were inconsistent in this approach (we did
consider these 99 reported efficiencies for the floor for
transfer operations).
As noted above, we currently estimate that there are 65 facilities
in the source category. Therefore, if data were available for all
facilities, the MACT floor would be based on the best-performing 12
percent, or 8 facilities. In our re-analysis of the MACT floor, we
considered the control achieved by the best-performing eight facilities
in our database. We disagree with the opinion regarding use of the
average rather than the median. As was stated in the preamble for the
proposed rule, we have determined that average means any measure of
central tendency, whether it be the arithmetic mean, median, or mode,
or some other measure based on the central tendency of a data set. We
continue to believe that this determination, which we originally
published over 8 years ago (59 FR 29196; June 6, 1994), is sound. For
the MACT determination for this source category, which was in the
format of a percent emission reduction, we determined that selection of
the median value was most appropriate. This ensured that a control
efficiency actually being achieved was selected, rather than the mean
of values, which would not likely have represented the actual
performance of an actual control device.
The commenters were correct in that we were inconsistent in how we
considered facilities that reported control efficiencies as
99 percent. For process vents and storage tanks, we did not
include data points reported as 99 percent when calculating
the MACT floor for the proposed rule, whereas for transfer operations
we did include data points reported as 99 percent when
calculating the MACT floor because we had only three data points, two
of which reported 99 percent. In evaluating this issue, we
determined that it was inappropriate to have not considered some of the
most effective controls in the source category for process vents and
storage tanks simply because their efficiencies were reported as
greater than a particular number. Therefore, in our re-analysis of the
MACT floor, we assigned a numerical value of 99 percent emission
reduction to each control device that reported an efficiency of
99 percent or =99 percent. The data points
reported as 99 percent or =99 percent were
obtained from permit applications, and we had no data that indicated
more specific control efficiencies in these cases. We believe that
rounding these data points down to 99 percent represents the closest
actual control efficiency that we are sure these sources could meet
consistently.
Due to the comments raised regarding the MACT floor approach and
the data used, it was necessary to re-evaluate the MACT floor. As a
reminder, the MACT floor addressed HCl emissions from process vents,
storage tanks, and transfer operations, and Cl2 emissions
from process vents. Further, the proposed format of the MACT floor for
all emission sources was a percent reduction. We determined the MACT
floor for existing sources as the median value of the top eight
facilities in the data set for each type of emission source.
The revised MACT floors for existing sources are 99 percent
emission reduction for HCl emissions from process vents and transfer
operations, 99 percent for Cl2 emissions from process vents,
and 98.5 percent for HCl emissions from storage tanks. For consistency,
we believe it is appropriate to round the storage tank value to 99
percent. The revised MACT floors for new sources are 99.4 percent
emission reduction for HCl emissions from process vents, 99.8 percent
emission reduction for Cl2 emissions from process vents,
99.9 percent emission reduction for HCl emissions from storage tanks,
and 99 percent emission reduction for HCl emissions from transfer
operations. These new source MACT floors are based on the level of
control achieved by the best-controlled source in the category.
[[Page 19084]]
3. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
The proposed emission limitations were in the format of an outlet
concentration. As outlined in the proposed preamble, we selected this
format primarily due to concerns in distinguishing an HCl control
device from an HCl production process. There were numerous comments
received regarding this format and the data used to establish the
emission limit. These proposed limits were developed by applying the
MACT floor percent reduction efficiencies to the highest uncontrolled
concentrations in the data set. Specifically, these highest
uncontrolled concentrations were 2,044 ppmv for HCl and 9,650 ppmv for
Cl2. Commenters stated that we established the concentration
equivalents to the MACT floor based on data that do not accurately
reflect the variability of sources in the source category. The
commenters noted that facilities in the source category often have
emission points (with only one exception, all examples raised by the
commenters were for storage tanks and transfer operations) that emit
much higher concentrations of HCl and Cl2 or emit at much
higher air flow rates than the facilities included in the our database.
The commenters stated that emission points with high concentrations
would need removal efficiencies greater than the MACT floor levels in
order to meet the proposed concentration limits, which we proposed as
being equivalent to the MACT floor percent removal efficiencies.
Therefore, the commenters maintained that the proposed emission limits
were far beyond the MACT floor and not justified.
Alternatively, one commenter stated that the proposed emission
limits were not as stringent as they should be. The commenter stated
that the MACT floor control efficiencies are appropriate, but that they
were inappropriately converted to equivalent concentration limits. The
commenter stated that we chose as equivalent to the MACT floor control
efficiency the highest concentration from the range of concentrations
that are already being achieved and noted that recent court decisions
reiterate that we must set the MACT floor at the average already being
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the sources, not at a
level at which all sources can easily meet. The commenter urged us to
establish emission limits that are appropriately stringent based on the
MACT floor control efficiencies.Commenters offered three basic
suggestions on how to deal with this perceived problem. Several
commenters requested that we collect and examine inlet concentration
data from a variety of additional process vents, storage tanks, and
transfer operations, and develop emission limits that are more
appropriate to the actual inlet concentrations observed in the source
category.
In the absence of more data, commenters encouraged us to establish
a tiered control efficiency based on flow rate. That would avoid the
situation in which already well-controlled scrubbers with high air flow
rates incur a high additional cost to achieve the proposed
concentration limit. The final suggestion by several commenters was
that we allow compliance with either a control efficiency or an
emission limit, whichever is less stringent. The commenters stated that
such an alternative would relieve the situation where control devices
have high removal efficiencies but cannot meet the proposed
concentration limits because they have high inlet concentrations.
First, we reject the commenter's opinion that additional data are
needed to establish these concentration equivalents. As discussed
above, we believe that our data gathering approach was sound and are
not convinced that additional data gathering would necessarily result
in data that better characterizes the industry.
However, we recognize that none of the data used to establish the
concentration equivalents were from storage tanks or transfer
operations. We agree that uncontrolled concentrations from storage
tanks and transfer operations are likely to be much higher than those
for the process vents in our data set because HCl remains in storage
tanks and transfer operations long enough for the concentration in the
vapor to reach equilibrium with the concentration in the liquid,
whereas HCl passes through HCl production units quickly. We would
expect that, in many cases, the vapor space in storage tanks and
transfer operations will be saturated. As discussed above, we have
revised the HCl production facility definition to include production of
liquid HCl at a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater. At
saturation, the HCl vapor concentration above a 30 weight percent HCl
liquid would be around 12,000 ppmv. Applying the existing source MACT
floor reduction efficiencies (99 percent for storage tanks and for
transfer operations) to this concentration results in an outlet
concentration of 120 ppmv. Applying the new source MACT floor reduction
efficiencies (99.9 percent for storage vessels and 99 percent for
transfer operations) to this concentration results in an outlet
concentration of 12 ppmv for storage tanks and 120 ppmv for transfer
operations. These are the emission limitations for storage tanks and
transfer operations in the final rule.
With one exception, the comments did not indicate that the
uncontrolled concentrations used to determine the emission limitations
for process vents (2,044 ppmv for HCl and 9,650 ppmv for
Cl2) were inappropriate. Therefore, we applied the revised
existing source MACT floor control efficiencies (99 percent for both
HCl and Cl2 emissions from process vents) to these
concentrations to obtain 20 ppmv HCl and approximately 100 ppmv
Cl2. Applying the new source MACT floor reduction
efficiencies (99.4 percent for HCl emissions from process vents and
99.8 percent for Cl2 emissions from process vents) to this
concentration results in outlet concentrations of 12 ppmv HCl and 20
ppmv Cl2 (rounded up from 19 ppmv). These are the emission
limitations for process vents in the final rule. We believe instances
cited by one commenter regarding inlet Cl2 concentrations in
process vents would be addressed by the alternative format in the final
rule, which is discussed below.
We disagree with the commenter who believed that the emission
limitations were not as stringent as they should be. The percent
reduction limits represent the average control level of the best-
controlled sources, in accordance with CAA section 112(d)(3). The
alternative concentration limits were determined using the appropriate
percent reduction limits (which were based on the average of the best-
controlled sources) and the available data on control device inlet
concentrations. In determining the concentration limits, we made
assumptions about these inlet concentrations for each type of emission
source (for example, we chose the highest concentration) to consider
the variability that will be encountered by the best-performing
sources. We strongly disagree that all sources can easily meet these
limits, and we believe that significant control measures will be
required for facilities to meet the limits.
We do not believe that a tiered control efficiency based on flow
rate is appropriate based on the available information, and we did not
incorporate such a concept into the final rule. We do recognize,
nevertheless, that situations could exist where sources could achieve
the MACT floor reduction efficiency but fail to meet the applicable
outlet concentration emission limitations. Further, the commenters
alleviated our concerns at proposal regarding a percent reduction
emission
[[Page 19085]]
limit. We were concerned that it would be difficult to determine how
and where to measure a control efficiency but commenters alleviated
this concern by stating that the HCl production unit is distinguishable
from the control device, which makes it clear where to measure the
control device inlet and outlet in order to calculate a control
efficiency over the control device. Therefore, we have incorporated the
third suggestion of the commenters (compliance with either a control
efficiency or a concentration limit) into the final rule. Owners or
operators will have the option of complying with a percent reduction
efficiency instead of the outlet concentration limitation. For storage
tanks and transfer operations, the percent reduction and concentration
limit are equivalent assuming that a 30 weight percent liquid HCl
product is stored in the tanks or used in the transfer operations. For
process vents, the percent reduction and concentration limits are
equivalent assuming process vent outlet concentrations of approximately
2,000 ppmv HCl and 10,000 ppmv Cl2. These outlet
concentrations were assumed in order to take into account the
variability of outlet concentrations from HCl process vents. The
percent reduction will be measured across the control device, or series
of control devices, that follow the absorber production unit, storage
tank, or transfer rack. We have added definitions of HCl production
unit and control device to ensure that there is no confusion regarding
where the percent reduction must be measured.
Comments were received on whether transfer operations and
wastewater operations should have emission limitations. We were asked
to reconsider the need to set emission limitations for transfer
operations because emissions from transfer operations contribute less
than one percent of the total emissions from HCl production facilities
and because most transfer operations at HCl production facilities are
already controlled. There was complete agreement, however, that our
decision not to establish emission limits or work practice standards
for wastewater treatment operations was appropriate.
We are obligated to set emission limitations at least as stringent
as the MACT floor, which we are required to establish based on the
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing existing
sources, regardless of the percentage of total emissions attributable
to the specific equipment or process. This principle was applied for
both transfer operations and wastewater. For transfer operations, the
available information is consistent with the commenter's statement that
``most transfer operations are already controlled.'' Therefore, we are
required to establish limits requiring control based on the best
performing sources. We did not identify any controls for emissions from
wastewater, or any process modifications or other pollution prevention
type measures that reduce HCl emissions from wastewater. For the
reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we determined
that the new and existing source MACT floors for wastewater were no
emissions reductions (66 FR 48181-48182; September 18, 2001).
Therefore, the final rule does not require any controls or other
measures even though wastewater operations are part of the affected
source.
Similarly, in developing the proposed rule, we determined that the
MACT floor for leaking equipment is a general plan to detect and repair
leaks of HCl because most HCl production facilities are already
performing LDAR activities. The response received on these proposed
requirements varied.
Several commenters agreed with our basic proposed approach to
require the development and implementation of a site-specific plan,
rather than to include more formal requirements in the final rule.
However, there was great concern regarding the proposed requirement to
submit the plan to a permitting authority for review and approval. The
commenters stated that they are not aware of any NESHAP that requires
LDAR plans to be submitted for approval, and that requiring these plans
to be submitted for approval effectively makes them part of a
facility's title V operating permit and, consequently, implementation
of the initial plan and any changes to the plan would require a formal
permit amendment. They claimed that this would be very time consuming
and an unnecessary burden. The commenters noted that the proposed rule
did not address how the plan is to be approved, and requested that, if
the requirement to submit the plan is not eliminated, the EPA provide
criteria for permitting authorities to use in reviewing LDAR plans. The
commenters asserted that eliminating the requirement to submit LDAR
plans alleviates the burdens associated with title V permits and also
allows informal or routine maintenance programs to constitute the LDAR
plan.
One commenter proposed that we include very simplified requirements
in the final rule (e.g., if you detect a leak, repair it within 15
days). Others argued that the EPA should eliminate any and all
references to an LDAR plan from the final rule.
First, in light of the fact that most, if not all, HCl production
facilities already have programs to reduce emissions from equipment
leaks at HCl production facilities, we cannot eliminate the requirement
to establish a floor and control emissions from equipment leaks. We
also believe it is important that LDAR plans be submitted to the
Administrator to facilitate enforcement of the final rule and public
access to non-confidential plan requirements, and the final rule
retains the proposed requirement for submittal. However, in response to
the commenters' concerns, we have eliminated the proposed requirement
that LDAR plans be affirmatively approved. Instead, we have clarified
that any deficiencies in LDAR plans must be promptly corrected upon
request by the Administrator, in order to allow the Administrator to
review and approve LDAR plans if the Administrator so chooses.
Moreover, we do not intend that the contents of a LDAR plan itself
must be included in a facility's title V permit. Rather, like other
requirements of the final rule, the requirements to develop, implement,
and submit a LDAR plan to control emissions from equipment leaks--but
not the contents of the plan--are applicable requirements under title V
and must be reflected in a facility's title V operating permit. We have
clarified that you may incorporate by reference into your LDAR plan
existing manuals that describe LDAR activities required under other
federally enforceable rules, provided that copies of all manuals that
are incorporated by reference are submitted to the Administrator. We
are also requiring that a current copy of the plan be maintained on
site, and that previous versions be maintained on site for a period of
5 years after any revision of the plan.
C. What Are the Performance Testing and Other Compliance Provisions?
Several changes were made in the final rule related to the
performance testing and other compliance provisions. First, commenters
objected to the proposed annual performance testing requirement. They
stated that the initial performance test is sufficient to demonstrate
initial compliance and establish operating parameter ranges and that
monitoring of those parameters is sufficient to demonstrate continuous
compliance. The commenters further stated that performance tests are
expensive and provide no additional environmental benefit, and that the
cost of annual performance tests was not
[[Page 19086]]
accounted for in the cost impact analysis. We agree with the commenters
that it is reasonable to perform subsequent performance tests less
frequently than annually and have decided to change the requirement for
subsequent performance testing from annually to every 5 years or each
time a facility's title V permit is renewed, whichever is more
frequent.
There was also objection to the proposed requirement that
performance testing be conducted and the NOCS submitted before the
compliance date, especially since the General Provisions set deadlines
for these activities after the compliance date. We have changed the
final rule to conform with the General Provisions. The final rule
requires the performance test to be completed within 180 days after the
compliance date. The final rule does not change the requirement to
submit the NOCS within 60 days after completion of the performance
test, because this requirement was already consistent with the General
Provisions.
Commenters also said that the performance test requirements in the
proposed rule are not appropriate for storage tanks and transfer
operations, primarily because storage tanks and transfer operations are
batch operations that do not operate for long enough time periods to
conduct three one-hour sampling runs, which were required by the
proposed rule. Further, they cited the relatively high expense of such
testing, when compared with the small emissions from those sources.
Upon review of these comments and the additional information provided,
we decided to allow design evaluations as an alternate means of
demonstrating both initial and subsequent compliance for storage tanks
and transfer operations that are independently controlled (e.g., not
routed to a control device that also controls HCl process vent
emissions or any other continuous vent stream). The final rule requires
that the design evaluation include documentation demonstrating that the
control technique being used achieves the required control efficiency
when a liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or
greater is being loaded into the storage tank, or a tank truck, rail
car, ship, or barge.
For process vents, there were proposed limits for both HCl and
Cl2 emissions. Therefore, there were testing requirements
for both pollutants. Several commenters disagreed with the proposed
requirement that all affected HCl production facilities must conduct
performance tests for Cl2 from process vents. They
maintained that we did not have adequate support to require testing for
Cl2 and that only facilities that burn Cl2 to
produce HCl would have Cl2 emissions.
First, the docket for the final rule does include numerous
supporting references for our assertion that Cl can be
emitted from HCl production process vents. Of the 21 facilities for
which we had emissions data for HCl production process vents, 16
reported emissions of Cl2. In fact, 15 of these 16
facilities do not produce HCl in a direct synthesis process. However,
we acknowledge that there are a variety of processes that produce HCl,
not all of which have the potential to emit Cl2. Therefore,
we have added a provision to the final rule allowing facilities to use
process knowledge and previous performance test results to demonstrate
that Cl2 is not likely to be present in a process vent
emission stream. That provision allows facilities to be exempted from
the requirement to test process vents for Cl2 provided that
the appropriate documentation is submitted with the site-specific test
plan.
In response to a request that facilities be allowed to use existing
performance test data to demonstrate initial compliance in lieu of
conducting an initial performance test, we included an allowance in the
final rule allowing facilities to use existing performance test data to
demonstrate initial compliance for the emission point on which the test
was conducted provided that a three conditions are met. These are: (1)
The performance test was conducted within the previous 5-year period;
(2) the performance test was conducted using the same test methods
required by the final rule; and (3) no modifications have been made to
the process or emission point since the previous performance test was
conducted or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the results of
the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite process changes.
Several commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement to
submit the site-specific monitoring plan for approval, primarily
because, the commenters alleged, requiring submission of the plan would
result in the details of the plan being included in a facility's title
V permit and, the commenters further alleged, would cause a delay in
implementation and modification of the plan because of the lengthy time
period typical for approval of elements of a title V permit. It was
never our intent that the substantive provisions of a site-specific
monitoring plan would become part of a facility's title V operating
permit. We have changed the final rule to require the site-specific
monitoring plan to be developed, implemented, and submitted to the
Administrator, but not subject to the Administrator's approval. We also
have clarified that any deficiencies in site-specific monitoring plans
must be promptly corrected upon request of the Administrator, in order
to allow the Administrator to review and approve site-specific
monitoring plans if the Administrator chooses to do so. A facility's
title V permit must contain the final rule's requirement to develop and
implement the plan, which is an applicable requirement under title V,
but need not incorporate the substantive provisions of the plan itself,
even if the Administrator requests the plan to be submitted. We have
also added a requirement that a current copy of the plan be maintained
on site, and that previous versions be maintained on site for a period
of 5 years after the revision of the plan.
Several commenters stated that the detailed operation, inspection,
and maintenance requirements for monitoring devices are unnecessary
because the final rule requires facilities to develop their own site-
specific monitoring plans and requested that we delete the detailed
requirements. We had intended for facilities that monitor pH and liquid
flow rate to simply incorporate into their site-specific monitoring
plans the specific procedures that we included in the proposed rule
rather than develop their own procedures. We included specific
procedures in the proposed rule because no performance specification
had yet been promulgated for pH or liquid flow monitoring devices.
However, we are currently developing performance specifications for
continuous monitoring systems that must be followed by owners and
operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63.
Therefore, we have decided to remove the detailed requirements from 40
CFR 63.9025(b) and (c) of the final rule and wait for the rule that
would propose performance specifications for all of 40 CFR part 63. We
decided it would be premature to promulgate performance specifications
for the final rule when the specifications that would ultimately be
promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be different as a result of
possible public comments received on that rulemaking. We did add
language in the final rule to require that ``all monitoring equipment
shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to
manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures that provide
adequate assurance that the equipment
[[Page 19087]]
would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately.'' Therefore, owners
and operators will be required by the final rule to follow written
performance specifications, but not necessarily the ones that we
proposed. In addition, the requirement to develop a site-specific
monitoring plan, which must include performance specifications, is
retained in the final rule as the mechanism for formalizing the
performance specifications.
IV. Summary of the Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline emissions are approximately 2,270 Mg/yr (2,520
tpy) of HCl and 640 Mg/yr (700 tpy) of Cl2. The total annual
emissions reductions resulting from the final rule are estimated to be
approximately 1,050 Mg/yr (1,155 tpy) of HCl and 390 Mg/yr (430 tpy) of
Cl2.
B. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We do not expect that there will be any significant adverse non-air
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the final
standards for HCl production plants. The final rule will result in the
generation of additional wastewater from scrubbers. We have calculated
this amount to be approximately 103,000 gallons per year per process
vent scrubber and 500 gallons per year per storage tank/transfer
operation scrubber. We estimate that there are 16 facilities that will
install new process vent scrubbers and 32 facilities that will install
new storage tank or transfer operation scrubbers.
C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final rule for HCl
production is approximately $23.2 million in the fifth year for new and
existing sources. The total estimated annual cost of the final rule is
around $8.1 million in the fifth year for new and existing sources,
which includes the annualized costs of control and monitoring
equipment, other operation and maintenance, and the annual labor to
comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the final
rule once the sources are in compliance.
The economic impact analysis, which is a comparison of compliance
costs for the affected parent firms with their revenues, shows that the
estimated costs associated with the final rule are no more than 1.0
percent of the revenues for any of the 32 affected firms. It is likely
that the expected reduction in affected HCl output is no more than 0.01
percent or less from that industry. It should be noted that these
results are based on the application of costs from a subset of the
affected facilities to the remaining facilities. This is necessary due
to incomplete facility-level cost data. Therefore, it is likely that
there is no adverse impact expected to HCl producers as a result of
implementation of the final rule.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is,
therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request
(ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2032.2), and a copy
may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-
1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The final information requirements are based on notifications,
records, and reports required by the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to
national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized under CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to Agency
policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business
Information.
According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 150,156 labor hours, and
the annual average burden is 50,052 labor hours. The labor cost over
the 3-year period is $6,950,959, or $2,316,986 per year. The annualized
capital cost for monitoring equipment is $25,869. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are $664,622 over 3 years, averaging $221,541 per
year. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating
compliance, annual compliance certification reports, notifications, and
recordkeeping.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The OMB
control number(s) for the information collection requirements in the
final rule will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 or 48 CFR
chapter 15 in a subsequent Federal Register document after OMB approves
the ICR.
[[Page 19088]]
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., 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 final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has a maximum of 1,000 employees according to Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards (NAICS 325181, Alkalies
and Chlorine Manufacturing, and NAICS 325188, All Other Basic Inorganic
Chemical Manufacturing); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that the final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
accordance with the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq., we conducted an assessment of the final rule on small businesses
within the industries affected by the final rule. Based on SBA size
definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and
employment data, we identified 4 affected small businesses out of 32
affected parent businesses (or 13 percent of the total number). In
order to estimate impacts to affected small businesses, we conducted a
screening analysis that consists of estimates of the annual compliance
costs these businesses are expected to occur as compared to their
revenues. Since the data are such that costs can only be estimated for
a subset of the affected facilities, the available data were used to
determine the costs to the facilities outside of this subset. The
results of this screening analysis show that all but one of the small
businesses are expected to have annual compliance costs of 1 percent or
less. For more information, consult the docket for this project.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the final rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative with other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the final rule
for any year has been estimated to be approximately $6.2 million. Thus,
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the final
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no regulatory
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of Government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The standards apply only to HCl
producers and do not pre-exempt States from adopting more stringent
standards or otherwise regulate State or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 6, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
[[Page 19089]]
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives that we considered.
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on
health and safety risks, such that the analysis required under section
5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in our
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when we do
not use available and applicable VCS.
The final rule involves technical standards. We are citing the
following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 4, and 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the
NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, and
2G. The search and review results have been documented and are placed
in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057 for the final rule.
This search for emission measurement procedures identified eight
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the final rule.
The EPA determined that six of these eight standards were impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule.
Therefore, the final rule does not adopt these standards today. The
reasons for this determination for the six methods are discussed below.
The standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary Source Emissions--
Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts,''
is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in the final rule.
This standard, ISO 10780:1994, recommends the use of L-shaped pitots,
which historically have not been recommended by EPA because the S-type
design has large openings which are less likely to plug up with dust.
The standard ASTM D3464-96 (2001), ``Standard Test Method Average
Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is impractical as an
alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of the final rule
primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined
(e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits). Also, the lack of
supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and
specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately
addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive
comparison of the method in these areas.
The European standard EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ``Stationary Source
Emissions--Manual Method of Determination of HCl--Part 1: Sampling of
Gases Ratified European Text--Part 2: Gaseous Compounds Absorption
Ratified European Text--Part 3: Adsorption Solutions Analysis and
Calculation Ratified European Text,'' is impractical as an alternative
to EPA Method 26A. Part 3 of this standard cannot be considered
equivalent to EPA Method 26 or 26A because the sample absorbing
solution (water) would be expected to capture both HCl and
Cl2 gas, if present, without the ability to distinguish
between the two. The EPA Methods 26 and 26A use an acidified absorbing
solution to first separate HCl and Cl2 gas so that they can
be selectively absorbed, analyzed, and reported separately. In
addition, in EN 1911 the absorption efficiency for Cl2 gas
would be expected to vary as the pH of the water changed during
sampling.
Three of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-00,
``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),''
for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, and 4; ASTM 3796-90 (1998), ``Standard
Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,'' for EPA Method 2; and
ASTM E337-84 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with
a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb Temperatures),''
for EPA Method 4.
The following two of the eight voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of the final rule because they are under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in
Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,''
for EPA Method 2; and ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity
Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2).
Section 63.9020 to subpart NNNNN lists the EPA testing methods
included in the final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place
of any of the EPA testing methods.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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 final rule must submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the final rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. The final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on April 17, 2003.
[[Page 19090]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63,
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production
What This Subpart Covers
Sec.
63.8980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
63.9000 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.9005 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.9010 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.9015 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.9020 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
63.9025 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.9030 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.9035 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.9040 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.9045 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9050 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9055 What records must I keep?
63.9060 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.9065 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9070 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9075 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements
for HCl Production Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
What This Subpart Covers
63.8980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) and work practice standards for hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emitted from hydrochloric acid (HCl) production. This
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and
continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards.
Sec. 63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an HCl
production facility that produces a liquid HCl product at a
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater during its normal
operations and is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP.
This does not include HCl production facilities that only produce
occasionally liquid HCl product at a concentration of 30 weight percent
or greater.
(1) An HCl production facility is the collection of unit operations
and equipment associated with the production of liquid HCl product. The
HCl production facility begins at the point where a gaseous stream
containing HCl enters the HCl production unit. The HCl production
facility includes all HCl storage tanks that contain liquid HCl product
that is produced in the HCl production unit, with the exceptions noted
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The HCl production facility also
includes all HCl transfer operations that load HCl product produced in
the HCl production unit into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge,
along with the piping and other equipment in HCl service used to
transfer liquid HCl product from the HCl production unit to the HCl
storage tanks and/or HCl transfer operations. The HCl production
facility ends at the point that the liquid HCl product produced in the
HCl production unit is loaded into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or
barge, at the point the HCl product enters another process on the plant
site, or at the point the HCl product leaves the plant site via
pipeline.
(2) Storage tanks that are dedicated feedstock tanks for another
process and storage tanks that store HCl dedicated for use in
wastewater treatment are not considered part of an HCl production
facility.
(3) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
(b) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it
is also subject to NESHAP under one of the subparts listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.
(2) 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
(3) 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
(4) 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
(5) 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, National Emission Standards for
Pharmaceuticals Production.
(c) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it
is located following the incineration of chlorinated waste gas streams,
waste liquids, or solid wastes, and the emissions from the HCl
production facility are subject to one of the requirements listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Section 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission Standards for
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
[[Page 19091]]
Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer
Operations, and Wastewater.
(2) Section 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (subpart O,
Incinerators).
(3) Section 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
(d) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it
produces HCl through the direct synthesis of hydrogen and chlorine and
is part of a chlor-alkali facility.
(e) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it
is a research and development facility.
(f) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if
all of the gaseous streams containing HCl and chlorine (Cl2)
from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer operations
are recycled or routed to another process prior to being discharged to
the atmosphere.
Sec. 63.8990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at an HCl production facility.
(b) The affected source is the group of one or more HCl production
facilities at a plant site that are subject to this subpart, and all
associated wastewater operations, which contain the collection of
emission streams listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Each emission stream from an HCl process vent.
(2) Each emission stream from an HCl storage tank.
(3) Each emission stream from an HCl transfer operation.
(4) Each emission stream resulting from leaks from equipment in
HCl/Cl2 service.
(5) Each emission stream from HCl wastewater operations. There are
no emission limitations or other requirements in this subpart that
apply to HCl wastewater operations.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after September 18, 2001 and you
met the applicability criteria of Sec. 63.8985 at the time you
commenced construction.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.8995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) If you start up your affected source before April 17, 2003, you
must comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards
in this subpart no later than April 17, 2003.
(2) If you start up your affected source after April 17, 2003, you
must comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards
in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the emission limitations and work practice standards no later than 3
years after April 17, 2003.
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the
provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the area source becomes a
major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9045
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.9045 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.9000 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?
(a) With the exceptions noted in paragraph (c) of this section, you
must meet the applicable emission limit and work practice standard in
Table 1 to this subpart for each emission stream listed under Sec.
63.8990(b)(1) through (4) that is part of your affected source.
(b) With the exceptions noted in paragraph (c) of this section, you
must meet the applicable operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart for
each emission stream listed under Sec. 63.8990(b)(1) through (3) that
is part of your affected source.
(c) The emission streams listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section are exempt from the emission limitations, work practice
standards, and all other requirements of this subpart.
(1) Emission streams from HCl storage tanks that never store liquid
HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater.
(2) Emission streams from HCl transfer operations that never load
liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or
greater.
(3) Emission streams from HCl wastewater operations.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9005 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) All monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated,
maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or
other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the
equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately. For each
monitoring system required in this section, you must develop,
implement, and submit to the Administrator a site-specific monitoring
plan that addresses the installation requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section, the ongoing procedures in paragraphs
(d)(4) through (6) of this section, and the requirements in Sec.
63.9025, as applicable. You must submit the plan with your Notification
of Compliance Status. Upon request of the Administrator, you must
promptly correct any deficiencies in a site-specific monitoring plan
and submit the revised plan.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last
control device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures in
accordance with the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3),
(4)(ii), (7), and (8), and 63.9025.
[[Page 19092]]
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and (e)(1) and (2)(i).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9010 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance
date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995(a) and
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must conduct
performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date
that is specified for your existing affected source in Sec. 63.8995(b)
and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
September 18, 2001 and April 17, 2003, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with either the proposed emission limitation or the
promulgated emission limitation no later than 180 calendar days after
April 17, 2003 or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source,
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.9015 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct all applicable performance tests according to
the procedures in Sec. 63.9020 on the earlier of your title V
operating permit renewal or within 5 years of issuance of your title V
permit.
(b) You must report the results of subsequent performance tests
within 60 days after the completion of the test. This report should
also verify that the operating limits for your affected source have not
changed or provide documentation of revised operating limits
established as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. The reports for
all subsequent performance tests should include all applicable
information required in Sec. 63.9050.
Sec. 63.9020 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you as directed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section, except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
(1) You must develop a site-specific test plan according to Sec.
63.7(c)(2) and conduct each performance test according to the site-
specific test plan.
(2) You must conduct each performance test under representative
conditions according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under
the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 3.
(3) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(4) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(b) If you are complying with a percent reduction emission
limitation, you must determine the percent reduction in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP03.000
(1) Calculate the mass rate of either HCl or chlorine using
Equations 1 and 2 of this section:
where:
Ci, Co = Concentration of HCl or Cl2
in the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s),
respectively, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Ei, Eo = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 at
the inlet and outlet of the control device(s), respectively, dry basis,
kilogram per hour.
Mi, Mo = Molecular weight of HCl or
Cl2 at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s),
respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Qi, Qo = Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and
outlet of the control device(s), respectively, dry standard cubic meter
per minute.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per million)\-
1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour),
where standard temperature (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is
20[deg]C.
(2) Calculate the percent reduction of HCl or Cl2 using
Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP03.001
where:
R = Control efficiency of control device(s).
Ei = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 to the inlet to the
control device(s), kilograms per hour.
Eo = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 at the outlet of the
control device(s), kilograms per hour.
(c) You may prepare a design evaluation in lieu of conducting a
performance test for HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations that
are not routed to a control device that also controls HCl process vent
emissions or any other continuous vent stream. The design evaluation
shall include documentation demonstrating that the control technique
being used achieves the required control efficiency when a liquid HCl
product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being
loaded into the storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or
barge.
(1) If you use a caustic scrubber control device or a water
scrubber control device, the design evaluation shall address the vent
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio,
scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the
reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The
design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent concentration
level and shall include the additional information in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section for trays and a packed column
scrubber.
(i) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays.
(ii) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column and
for individual packed sections, if the column contains more than one
packed section.
(2) If you use any other control device, the design evaluation
shall address the composition and HAP concentration of the vent stream
immediately preceding the control device, as well as other parameters
necessary to demonstrate that the control technique being used achieves
the required control efficiency when a liquid HCl product with a
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being loaded into the
storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge.
(d) You are not required to conduct a performance test for an
emission point for which a performance test was conducted within the
previous 5-year period, using the same test methods specified in this
section and for which either no deliberate process changes have been
made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The operating limits
reported under the previous performance test shall be sufficient to
meet the monitoring requirements in this subpart.
(e) You must establish all operating limits with which you will
demonstrate
[[Page 19093]]
continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart as described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) If you use a caustic scrubber control device or water scrubber
control device and you conduct a performance test, you must establish
operating limits according to paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section. If a series of control devices are used, you must establish
separate operating limits for each device.
(i) You must establish the minimum value as the operating limit for
scrubber inlet liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, as
appropriate. The minimum value shall be based on the scrubber inlet
liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, as appropriate, values
measured during the performance test.
(ii) You must establish the minimum and maximum values as the
operating limits for scrubber effluent pH. The minimum and maximum
values shall be based on the scrubber effluent pH values measured
during the performance test.
(2) If you use any other control device and you conduct a
performance test, you must establish operating limits according to your
site-specific test plan submitted in accordance with Sec.
63.7(c)(2)(i). The operating limits shall be based on the operating
parameter values measured during the performance test. If a series of
control devices are used, you must establish separate operating limits
for each device.
(3) If you do not conduct a performance test for a HCl storage tank
or HCl transfer operation, you must use engineering assessments and/or
manufacturer's recommendations to establish the operating limits
specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii), or (e)(2), of this section.
(4) As needed in applicability determinations, you must use ASTM
E224 to determine the HCl concentration in liquid products.
Sec. 63.9025 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) For each operating parameter that you are required by Sec.
63.9020(d) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain each CMS
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) You must operate your CMS and collect data at all times the
process is operating.
(2) You must collect data from at least four equally spaced periods
each hour.
(3) For at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a 24-hour
period, you must have valid data (as defined in your site-specific
monitoring plan) for at least 4 equally spaced periods each hour.
(4) For each hour that you have valid data from at least four
equally spaced periods, you must calculate the hourly average value
using all valid data or, where data are collected from an automated
CMS, using at least one measured value per minute if measured more
frequently than once per minute.
(5) You must calculate the daily average using all of the hourly
averages calculated according to paragraph (a)(4) of this section for
the 24-hour period.
(6) You must record the results for each inspection, calibration,
and validation check as specified in your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(b) For scrubber control devices, you may request approval, in
accordance with Sec. 63.8(f), to monitor parameters other than those
specified in Sec. 63.9020(e). In accordance with Sec. 63.8(f), you
must submit a monitoring plan to the Administrator and the plan must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (3) of this
section. You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan
submitted to the Administrator unless comments received from the
Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme.
(1) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that
the control or capture efficiency measured during the initial
compliance test is maintained.
(2) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating
ongoing compliance.
(3) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.
(c) For any other control device, you must ensure that the CMS is
operated according to a monitoring plan submitted to the Administrator
as required by Sec. 63.8(f). The monitoring plan must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to
the Administrator, as amended, unless comments received from the
Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme.
(1) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that
the control or capture efficiency measured during the initial
compliance test is maintained.
(2) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating
ongoing compliance.
(3) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.
Sec. 63.9030 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limit and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table
4 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9020 and Table 3 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9045(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9035 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) If you use a caustic scrubber or a water scrubber/absorber to
meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to
support your compliance demonstration.
(1) Records of daily average scrubber inlet liquid or recirculating
liquid flow rate, as appropriate.
(2) Records of the daily average scrubber effluent pH.
(c) If you use any other control device to meet the emission limits
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep records of the operating
parameter values identified in your monitoring plan in Sec. 63.9025(c)
to support your compliance demonstration.
(d) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the affected
source is operating. A monitoring malfunction includes, but is not
limited to, any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure
of the monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures
that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions.
(e) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may
[[Page 19094]]
such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability
requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
Sec. 63.9040 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit and work practice standard in Table 1 to this subpart that
applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you according to
Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart.
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
emission limit, work practice standard or operating limit in Table 1 or
2 to this subpart, respectively, that applies to you. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9050.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(e) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9045 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(f)(4) and (6), and 63.9 (b) through (h) that apply to you
by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before April 17, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification
not later than 120 calendar days after April 17, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(4), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after April 17, 2003, you must
submit the application for construction or reconstruction required by
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)(iii) in lieu of the initial notification.
(d) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test
is scheduled to begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) When you conduct a performance test as specified in Table 3 to
this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status
according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(f) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(g) The Notification of Compliance Status must also include the
information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (2) of this section that
applies to you.
(1) Each operating parameter value averaged over the full period of
the performance test (for example, average pH).
(2) Each operating parameter range within which HAP emissions are
reduced to the level corresponding to meeting the applicable emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.9050 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8995 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.8995.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A), you may
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the following information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there
were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(7) Verification that you continue to use the equipment LDAR plan
and information that explains any periods when the procedures in the
plan were not followed and the corrective actions were not taken.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission
limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section and the following
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
[[Page 19095]]
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A brief description of the process units.
(9) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source
submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 6 to this subpart along
with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40
CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report
includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation in this subpart, submission of the compliance
report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements
to the permit authority.
(f) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting
period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and
malfunction report. Unless the Administrator has approved a different
schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must
submit each report according to paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) An initial report containing a description of the actions taken
for the event must be submitted by fax or telephone within 2 working
days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan.
(2) A follow-up report containing the information listed in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii) must be submitted within 7 working days after the end
of the event unless you have made alternative reporting arrangements
with the permitting authority.
Sec. 63.9055 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you
submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance
Status that you submitted, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(b) You must also keep the following records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(2) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Records of operating parameter values that are consistent with
your monitoring plan.
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(5) Copies of the current versions of the site-specific monitoring
plan and the equipment LDAR plan. You also must submit copies of these
plans and any revisions or updates to the Administrator for comment
only (not for approval).
Sec. 63.9060 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious inspection and review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site, or readily accessible from
on site through a computer or other means, for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records off site for the remaining 3 years. Records may be
maintained in hard copy or computer-readable format including, but not
limited to, on paper, microfilm, hard disk drive, floppy disk, compact
disk, magnetic tape, or microfiche.
(d) You must keep each previous (i.e., superseded) version of the
site-specific monitoring plan and the LDAR plan for a period of 5 years
after revision of the plan. If, at any time after adoption of a site-
specific monitoring plan or an LDAR plan, your affected source ceases
operation or is otherwise no longer subject to the provisions of this
subpart, you must retain a copy of the most recent plan for 5 years
from the date your source ceases operation or is no longer subject to
this subpart.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9065 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
(a) Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.9070 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, as well as U.S. EPA,
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies
are as follows.
(1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8980,
63.8985, 63.8990, 63.8995, and 63.9000.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.9075 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act in 40
CFR 63.2 and in this section as follows:
Caustic scrubber control device means any add-on device that mixes
an aqueous stream or slurry containing a caustic substance with the
exhaust gases from an HCl process vent, HCl storage
[[Page 19096]]
tank, or HCl transfer operation to control emissions of HCl and/or
Cl2.
Chlor-alkali facility means a facility where chlorine and sodium or
potassium hydroxide are produced as co-products and hydrogen is
produced as a by-product in an electrolytic process using either
mercury cells, diaphragm cells, or membrane cells.
Continuous monitoring system, for purposes of the final rule, means
liquid flow monitoring devices that meet the performance specifications
given in Sec. 63.9025(a); or pH monitoring devices that meet the
performance specifications given in Sec. 63.9025(a); or other control
devices as mentioned in 63.9025(a) and (b) or Sec. 63.9025(a) and (c).
Control device means an add-on device used to reduce HCl and/or
Cl2 emissions from an HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, or
HCl transfer operation at an HCl production facility. An HCl production
unit is not a control device.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or work
practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or work practice standard
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Emission stream means a gaseous stream from an HCl process vent, an
HCl storage tank, an HCl transfer operation, leaking equipment in HCl
service, or HCl wastewater operations that is discharged to the
atmosphere. Gaseous streams from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks,
and HCl transfer operations that are routed to another process or
recycled for reaction or other use (i.e., for pH control) of the HCl
and/or Cl2 are not emission streams. Gaseous streams from
HCl transfer operations that are vapor balanced to an HCl storage tank
subject to this subpart are not emission streams.
Equipment in HCl service means each pump, compressor, agitator,
pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or
line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system that contains 30
weight percent or greater of liquid HCl or 5 weight percent or greater
of gaseous HCl at any time.
HCl process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere, or
point of entry into a control device, of a gaseous stream that
originates from an HCl production unit. The following points of
discharge are not HCl process vents:
(1) A leak from equipment in HCl service subject to this subpart.
(2) An exit from a control device used to comply with this subpart.
(3) An HCl storage tank vent or HCl transfer operation vent subject
to this subpart.
(4) A HCl wastewater operation vent subject to this subpart.
(5) A point of discharge from a relief valve.
(6) A point of discharge from an analyzer.
HCl production facility is defined in Sec. 63.8985(a)(i).
HCl production unit means an absorber or other vessel in which a
liquid HCl product is manufactured by absorbing gaseous HCl into either
water or an aqueous HCl solution.
HCl storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
liquid HCl product. Tanks or vessels permanently attached to motor
vehicles (such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships) are not HCl
storage tanks.
HCl transfer operation means the loading, into a tank truck,
railcar, ship, or barge, of liquid HCl from a transfer (or loading)
rack (as defined in this section) for which the predominant use is
liquid HCl. The predominant use of a transfer (or loading) rack is the
material that is loaded by the transfer (or loading) rack in the
greatest amount.
HCl wastewater operation means an operation that handles and
processes water containing HCl that is discarded from an HCl production
facility.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Research and development facility means laboratory and pilot plant
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development
into new processes and products, where the operations are under close
supervision of technically trained personnel, and the operations are
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except
in a de minimis manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2 of this chapter.
Transfer (or loading) rack means the collection of loading arms and
loading hoses, at a single loading rack, that are used to fill tank
trucks, railcars, ships, and/or barges. Transfer rack includes the
associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other
piping and valves.
Vapor balanced means connected to a piping system that is designed
to collect vapors displaced from tank trucks, rail cars, ships, or
barges during loading, and to route the collected vapors to the storage
vessel from which the liquid being loaded originated, or to another
storage vessel connected by a common header.
Vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere or to a control
device from either an HCl process vent, an HCl storage tank, or an HCl
transfer operation.
Water scrubber control device means any add-on device that mixes an
aqueous stream not containing a caustic substance with the exhaust
gases from an HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, or HCl transfer
operation to control emissions of HCl and/or Cl2.
Tables to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63
As stated in Sec. 63.9000(a), you must comply with the following
emission limits and work practice standards for each emission stream
that is part of an affected source:
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For each. . . emission limit and work
practice standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission stream from an HCl process a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99
vent at an existing source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 20 ppm
by volume or less; and
[[Page 19097]]
b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99
percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 100
ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
2. Emission stream from an HCl storage Reduce HCl emissions by 99
tank at an existing source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 120
ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
3. Emission stream from an HCl transfer Reduce HCl emissions by 99
operation at an existing source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 120
ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
4. Emission stream from leaking a. Prepare and operate at all
equipment in HCl/Cl2 service at times according to an
existing sources. equipment LDAR plan that
describes in detail the
measures that will be put in
place to detect leaks and
repair them in a timely
fashion; and
b. Submit the plan to the
Administrator for comment only
with your notification of
Compliance Status; and
c. You may incorporate by
reference in such plan
existing manuals that describe
the measures in place to
control leaking equipment
emissions required as part of
other federally enforceable
requirements, provided that
all manuals that are
incorporated by reference are
submitted to the
Administrator.
----------------------------------------
5. Emission stream from an HCl process a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99.4
vent at a new source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 12 ppm
by volume or less; and
b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99.8
percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 20 ppm
by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
6. Emission stream from an HCl storage Reduce HCl emissions by 99.9
tank at a new source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 12 ppm
by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
7. Emission stream from an HCl transfer Reduce HCl emissions by 99
operation at a new source. percent or greater or to an
outlet concentration of 120
ppm by volume or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.9000(b), you must comply with the following
operating limits for each emission stream that is part of an affected
source that is vented to a control device:
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Caustic scrubber or water scrubber/ a. Maintain the daily average
absorber. scrubber inlet liquid or
recirculating liquid flow
rate, as appropriate, above
the operating limit; and
b. Maintain the daily average
scrubber effluent pH within
the operating limits; or
c. Instead of a. and b.,
maintain your operating
parameter(s) within the
operating limits established
according to your monitoring
plan established under Sec.
63.8(f).
----------------------------------------
2. Other type of control device to Maintain your operating
which HCl emissions are ducted. parameter(s) within the limits
established during the
performance test and according
to your monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.9020, you must comply with the following
requirements for performance tests for HCl production for each affected
source:
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
HCl Production Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each HCl process vent
and each HCl storage tank
and HCl transfer operation Additional
for which you are conducting Using . . . Information . . .
a performance test, you must
. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port a. Method 1 or 1A in i. If complying with
location(s) and the number appendix A to 40 a percent reduction
of traverse points. CFR part 60 of this emission
chapter. limitation,
sampling sites must
be located at the
inlet and outlet of
the control device
prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere (or, if
a series of control
devices are used,
at the inlet of the
first control
device and at the
outlet of the final
control device
prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere); or
ii. If complying
with an outlet
concentration
emission
limitation, the
sampling site must
be located at the
outlet of the final
control device and
prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
-----------------------------
[[Page 19098]]
2. Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C,
volumetric flow rate. 2D, 2F, or 2G in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 of this
chapter.
-----------------------------
3. Determine gas molecular a. Not applicable... i. Assume a
weight. molecular weight of
29 (after moisture
correction) for
calculation
purposes.
-----------------------------
4. Measure moisture content Method 4 in appendix
of the stack gas. A to 40 CFR part 60
of this chapter.
-----------------------------
5. Measure HCl concentration a. Method 26A in i. An owner or
and Cl2 concentration from Appendix A to 40 operator may be
HCl process vents. CFR part 60 of this exempted from
chapter. measuring the Cl2
concentration from
an HCl process vent
provided that a
demonstration that
Cl2 is not likely
to be present in
the stream is
submitted as part
of the site-
specific test plan
required by Sec.
63.9020(a)(2). This
demonstration may
be based on process
knowledge,
engineering
judgement, or
previous test
results.
-----------------------------
6. Establish operating
limits with which you will
demonstrate continuous
compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart, in
accordance with Sec.
63.9020(e)(1) or (2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.9030, you must comply with the following
requirements to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
emission limits for each affected source vented to a control device and
each work practice standard:
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission limit or You have
For each . . . work practice demonstrated initial
standard . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HCl process vent and each a. In Table 1 to i. The average
HCl storage tank and HCl this subpart. percent reduction
transfer operation for of HCl and Cl2 (if
which you are conducting a applicable),
performance test. measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted according
to Table 3 of this
subpart and
determined in
accordance with
Sec. 63.9020(b),
is greater than or
equal to the
applicable percent
reduction emission
limitation
specified in Table
1 of this subpart;
or
ii. The average HCl
and Cl2 (if
applicable)
concentration,
measured over the
period of the
performance test
conducted according
to Table 3 of this
subpart, is less
than or equal to
the applicable
concentration
emission limitation
specified in Table
1 of this subpart.
-----------------------------
2. HCl storage tank and HCl a. In Table 1 to i. The percent
transfer operation for this subpart. reduction of HCl,
which you are preparing a demonstrated by a
design evaluation in lieu design evaluation
of conducting a performance prepared in
test. accordance with
Sec. 63.9020(c),
is greater than or
equal to the
applicable percent
reduction emission
limitation
specified in Table
1 of this subpart;
or
ii. The HCl
concentration,
demonstrated by a
design evaluation
prepared in
accordance with
Sec. 63.9020(c),
is less than or
equal to the
applicable
concentration
emission limitation
specified in Table
1 of this subpart.
-----------------------------
3. Leaking equipment........ a. In Table 1 to i. You certify in
this subpart. your Notification
of Compliance
Status that you
have developed and
implemented your
LDAR plan and
submitted it to the
Administrator for
comment only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19099]]
As stated in Sec. 63.9040, you must comply with the following
requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limitations for each affected source vented to a control
device and each work practice standard:
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You must demonstrate
emission limitation continuous
For each . . . and work practice compliance by . . .
standard . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affected source using a a. In Tables 1 and 2 i. Collecting the
caustic scrubber or water to this subpart. scrubber inlet
scrubber/absorber. liquid or
recirculating
liquid flow rate,
as appropriate, and
effluent pH
monitoring data
according to Sec.
63.9025, consistent
with your
monitoring plan;
and
ii. Reducing the
data to 1-hour and
daily block
averages according
to the requirements
in Sec. 63.9025;
and
iii. Maintaining the
daily average
scrubber inlet
liquid or
recirculating
liquid flow rate,
as appropriate,
above the operating
limit; and
iv. Maintaining the
daily average
scrubber effluent
pH within the
operating limits.
-----------------------------
2. Affected source using any a. In Tables 1 and 2 i. Conducting
other control device. to this subpart. monitoring
according to your
monitoring plan
established under
Sec. 63.8(f) in
accordance with
Sec. 63.9025(c);
and
ii. Collecting the
parameter data
according to your
monitoring plan
established under
Sec. 63.8(f); and
iii. Reducing the
data to 1-hour and
daily block
averages according
to the requirements
in Sec. 63.9025;
and
iv. Maintaining the
daily average
parameter values
within the
operating limits
established
according to your
monitoring plan
established under
Sec. 63.8(f).
-----------------------------
3. Leaking equipment a. In Table 1 to i. Verifying that
affected source. this subpart. you continue to use
a LDAR plan; and
ii. Reporting any
instances where you
deviated from the
plan and the
corrective actions
taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.9050(a), you must submit a compliance report
that includes the information in Sec. 63.9050(c) through (e) as well
as the information in the following table. You must also submit
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) reports according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9050(f) and the following:
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must submit a report
If... or statement that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There are no deviations from any There were no deviations from
emission limitations that apply to you. any emission limitations that
apply to you during the
reporting period.
----------------------------------------
2. There were no periods during which There were no periods during
the operating parameter monitoring which the CMS were out-of-
systems were out-of-control in control during the reporting
accordance with the monitoring plan. period.
----------------------------------------
3. There was a deviation from any Contains the information in
emission limitation during the Sec. 63.9050(d).
reporting period.
----------------------------------------
4. There were periods during which the Contains the information in
operating parameter monitoring systems Sec. 63.9050(d).
were out-of-control in accordance with
the monitoring plan.
----------------------------------------
5. There was a SSM during the reporting Contains the information in
period that is not consistent with Sec. 63.9050(f).
your SSM plan.
----------------------------------------
6. There were periods when the Contains the information in
procedures in the LDAR plan were not Sec. 63.9050(c)(7).
followed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.9065, you must comply with the applicable
General Provisions requirements according to the following:
[[Page 19100]]
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to Subpart NNNNN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1....................... Initial applicability Yes. ....................
determination;
applicability after
standard
established; permit
requirements;
extensions;
notifications.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions.......... Yes............................ Additional
definitions are
found in Sec.
63.9075.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Yes. ....................
abbreviations.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited Yes. ....................
activities;
compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.5....................... Construction/ Yes. ....................
reconstruction
applicability;
applications;
approvals.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Compliance with Yes. ....................
standards and
maintenance
requirements--applic
ability.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)............. Compliance dates for Yes............................ Sec. 63.8995
new or reconstructed specifies
sources. compliance dates.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Notification if Yes. ....................
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved]........... Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance dates for Yes............................ Sec. 63.8995
new or reconstructed specifies
area sources that compliance dates.
become major.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............. Compliance dates for Yes............................ Sec. 63.8995
existing sources. specifies
compliance dates.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............. [Reserved]........... Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. Compliance dates for Yes............................ Sec. 63.8995
existing area specifies
sources that become compliance dates.
major.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(d).................... [Reserved]........... Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)............. Operation and Yes. ....................
maintenance
requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. SSM plans............ Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. Compliance except Yes. ....................
during SSM.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............. Methods for Yes. ....................
determining
compliance.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(g).................... Use of an alternative Yes. ....................
nonopacity emission
standard.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(h).................... Compliance with No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
opacity/visible not specify opacity
emission standards. or visible emission
standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(i).................... Extension of Yes. ....................
compliance with
emission standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential Yes. ....................
compliance exemption.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............. Performance test Yes............................ Except for existing
dates. affected sources as
specified in Sec.
63.9010(b).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. Administrator's Clean Yes. ....................
Air Act section 114
authority to require
a performance test.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(b).................... Notification of Yes. ....................
performance test and
rescheduling.
-----------------------------------
[[Page 19101]]
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality assurance Yes. ....................
program and site-
specific test plans.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Performance testing Yes. ....................
facilities.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Conditions for Yes. ....................
conducting
performance tests.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Use of an alternative Yes. ....................
test method.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Performance test data Yes. ....................
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver ofperformance Yes. ....................
tests.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)............. Applicability of Yes............................ Additional
monitoring monitoring
requirements. requirements are
found in Sec.
63.9005(d) and
63.9035.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Monitoring with No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
flares. not refer directly
or indirectly to
Sec. 63.11.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(b).................... Conduct of monitoring Yes. ....................
and procedures when
there are multiple
effluents and
multiple monitoring
systems.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3)............. Continuous monitoring Yes............................ Applies as modified
system O&M. by Sec.
63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous monitoring Yes............................ Applies as modified
system requirements by Sec.
during breakdown, 63.9005(d).
out-of-control,
repair, maintenance,
and high-level
calibration drifts.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. Continuous opacity No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
monitoring system not have opacity or
(COMS) minimum visible emmission
procedures. standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................. Zero and high level Yes............................ Applies as modified
calibration checks. by Sec.
63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(8).............. Out-of-control Yes. ....................
periods, including
reporting.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)................ Quality control No............................. Applies as modified
program and CMS by Sec.
performance 63.9005(d).
evaluation.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............. Use of an alternative Yes. ....................
monitoring method.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to No............................. Only applies to
relative accuracy sources that use
test. continuous
emissions
monitoring systems
(CEMS).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(g).................... Data reduction....... Yes............................ Applies as modified
by Sec.
63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Yes. ....................
requirements--applic
ability.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(b).................... Initial notifications Yes............................ Except Sec.
63.9045(c) requires
new or
reconstructed
affected sources to
submit the
application for
construction or
reconstruction
required by Sec.
63.9(b)(1) (iii) in
lieu of the initial
notification.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for Yes. ....................
compliance extension.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(d).................... Notification that a Yes. ....................
new source is
subject to special
compliance
requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Yes. ....................
performance test.
-----------------------------------
[[Page 19102]]
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
visible emissions/ not have opacity or
opacity test. visible emission
standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)................. Additional CMS Yes. ....................
notifications--date
of CMS performance
evaluation.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)................. Use of COMS data..... No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
not require the use
of COMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)................. Alternative to No............................ Applies only to
relative accuracy sources with CEMS.
testing.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(h).................... Notification of Yes. ....................
compliance status.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Yes. ....................
submittal deadlines.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in previous Yes. ....................
information.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping/ Yes. ....................
reporting
applicability.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ General recordkeeping Yes............................ Sec. Sec. 63.9055
requirements. and 63.9060 specify
additional
recordkeeping
requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)........ Records related to Yes. ....................
SSM periods and CMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Records when under Yes. ....................
waiver.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records when using No............................. Applies only to
alternative to sources with CEMS.
relative accuracy
test.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... All documentation Yes. ....................
supporting initial
notification and
notification of
compliance status.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Yes. ....................
requirements for
applicability
determinations.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(c)................... Additional Yes............................ Applies as modified
recordkeeping by Sec.
requirements for 63.9005(d).
sources with CMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General reporting Yes............................ Sec. 63.9050
requirements. specifies
additional
reporting
requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Performance test Yes. ....................
results.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Opacity or visible No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
emissions not specify opacity
observations. or visible emission
standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress reports for Yes. ....................
sources with
compliance
extensions.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ SSM reports.......... Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)................ Additional CMS Yes............................ Applies as modified
reports--general. by Sec.
63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(i)............. Results of CMS Yes............................ Applies as modified
performance by Sec.
evaluations. 63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............ Results of COMS No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
performance not require the use
evaluations. of COMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................ Excess emissions/CMS Yes. ....................
performance reports.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ Continuous opacity No............................. Subpart NNNNN does
monitoring system not require the use
data reports. of COMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Recordkeeping/ Yes. ....................
reporting waiver.
-----------------------------------
[[Page 19103]]
Sec. 63.11...................... Control device No............................. Facilities subject
requirements--applic to subpart NNNNN do
ability. not use flares as
control devices.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.12...................... State authority and Yes............................ Sec. 63.9070 lists
delegations. those sections of
subparts NNNNN and
A that are not
delegated.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses............ Yes. ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Yes............................ Subpart NNNNN does
reference. not incorporate any
material by
reference.
-----------------------------------
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes. ....................
information/
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-5517 Filed 4-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P