National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, 56008-56056 [E9-25576]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 208 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56008-56056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25576]



[[Page 56007]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 
Manufacturing Area Sources; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56008]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334; FRL-8972-6]
RIN 2060-AM19


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for the control of 
hazardous air pollutants for nine area source categories in the 
chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 
Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial 
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, 
Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The 
standards and associated requirements for the nine area source 
categories are combined in one subpart. This final rule establishes 
emission standards in the form of management practices for each 
chemical manufacturing process unit as well as emission limits for 
certain subcategories of process vents and storage tanks. The rule also 
establishes management practices and other emission reduction 
requirements for subcategories of wastewater systems and heat exchange 
systems.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Coatings and 
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: 
(919) 541-5402; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: 
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for this Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Standards
    C. Initial Compliance
    D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
    F. Title V
IV. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Compliance Dates
    C. Standards
    D. Initial Compliance Requirements
    E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
    F. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Compliance Dates
    C. Standards
    D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunction (SSM)
    H. Title V Permitting
VI. Impacts of Final Area Source Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action are shown in the table below. This final rule applies to each 
chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) that uses as feedstocks,\1\ 
generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of the following 
15 hazardous air pollutants (HAP): 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene; 
acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene dichloride; methylene chloride; 
hexachlorobenzene; hydrazine; quinoline (i.e., ``chemical manufacturing 
organic urban HAP'' or ``Table 1\2\ organic HAP''); or compounds of 
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel (i.e., 
``chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 metal HAP''). 
Consistent with the proposed rule, the standards do not apply to 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and 
hydrogen fluoride) at affected sources, except when these HAP are 
generated in combustion-based emission control devices that are used to 
meet the proposed standards for organic HAP on Table 1.\3\ The affected 
source for this rule is the facility-wide collection of CMPUs that use, 
generate, or produce one or more of the Table 1 HAP and the wastewater 
systems and heat exchange systems associated with the CMPUs that use 
Table 1 HAP. A CMPU includes all process equipment and activities 
involved in the production of a material described by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325.\4\ If a CMPU uses, 
generates, or

[[Page 56009]]

produces one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP listed 
above, then the standards apply to all listed Clean Air Act (CAA) 
section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from that CMPU. Similarly, if a CMPU 
uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical manufacturing metal 
urban HAP listed above, then the standards apply to all listed CAA 
section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from that CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives 
to the process.
    \2\ ``Table 1'' refers to Table 1 in the final rule.
    \3\ Collectively, the Table 1 organic and metal HAP are referred 
to as the ``chemical manufacturing urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 HAP.''
    \4\ The CMPU is defined by a facility's production of materials 
described by NAICS code 325. A facility producing such a material 
(or family of materials) may use more than one train or series of 
equipment to make it. All equipment (i.e., unit operation) used to 
produce a specific product (as well as all the vents and activities 
associated with making this product) are considered to be part of a 
single CMPU for purposes of this rule. For example, facility X makes 
a pharmaceutical product that requires the use of methylene chloride 
as a solvent. The product is produced in any of three different size 
reactors, depending on the quantity needed or equipment 
availability. All of the reactors; other process equipment (e.g., 
for separation, drying, etc.); connecting piping and related pumps, 
valves, etc.; storage tanks; transfer operations; surge control 
vessels; bottoms receivers; and other activities (e.g., routine 
cleaning) are part of a single CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
       Industry category          NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing.........             325  Chemical manufacturing
                                                  area sources that use
                                                  as feedstock, generate
                                                  as byproduct, or
                                                  produce as product,
                                                  any of the HAP subject
                                                  to this subpart except
                                                  for: (1) Processes
                                                  classified in NAICS
                                                  Code 325222, 325314,
                                                  or 325413; (2)
                                                  processes subject to
                                                  standards for other
                                                  listed area source
                                                  categories \2\ in
                                                  NAICS 325; (3) certain
                                                  fabricating
                                                  operations; (4)
                                                  manufacture of
                                                  photographic film,
                                                  paper, and plate where
                                                  material is coated or
                                                  contains chemicals
                                                  (but the manufacture
                                                  of the photographic
                                                  chemicals is
                                                  regulated); and (5)
                                                  manufacture of
                                                  radioactive elements
                                                  or isotopes, radium
                                                  chloride, radium
                                                  luminous compounds,
                                                  strontium, and
                                                  uranium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ The source categories in NAICS 325 for which other area source
  standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production,
  Chemical Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium
  Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and
  Allied Coatings, and Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing.

    Area sources in NAICS 325 not specifically identified in the chart 
above may also be affected by this action. To determine whether your 
chemical manufacturing area source is regulated by this action, you 
should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 of subpart 
VVVVVV (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources). For additional information about 
applicability provisions, see sections III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 
preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority 
for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 
63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
December 28, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 
and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA 
section 112(c). A major source is any stationary source that emits or 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999) (Strategy). Specifically, 
in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential 
health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 
urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list 
sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that 
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 
HAP are subject to regulation. We selected the nine chemical 
manufacturing area source categories based on these requirements. A 
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in 
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:


[[Page 56010]]


    * * * methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small 
businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in 
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the 
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and 
management practices on that category.
    We are issuing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for nine 
source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B) by October 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, 
D.D.C., March 2006).

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability

    In the proposed rule, we proposed that the affected source include 
the entire facility if the facility emitted any of the chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, all process 
vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater systems, and 
cooling towers at the facility would be subject to the standards if any 
emissions source at the facility emitted one of the chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. In response to comments, we narrowed the scope 
of applicability of this final rule, and we made several changes to 
clarify the applicability provisions. The most significant change is 
that only CMPU that emit one or more of the 15 chemical manufacturing 
urban HAP and the wastewater systems and heat exchange systems 
associated with those CMPUs are subject to the rule. A CMPU includes 
all process equipment and activities involved in the production of a 
material (or family of materials) described by NAICS code 325. 
Additionally, a CMPU includes each surge control vessel, bottoms 
receiver, pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage 
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the 
production of a subject NAICS 325 material. The final rule provides 
that a CMPU consists of one or more processing steps used in the 
production of the subject NAICS 325 material.
    The final rule further specifies that each CMPU within an affected 
source that emits one of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP is 
subject only to requirements that apply to the same type of HAP that 
triggered applicability, not requirements for all types of HAP. For 
example, a CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP 
is required to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. Similarly, a 
CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP is required 
to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP. For the purposes of this 
provision, hydrazine is considered to be an organic HAP.
    In response to comments, we are clarifying that the rule does not 
extend to structural items (e.g., piping) and items that exist as 
``articles'' as defined in 40 CFR 372.3, and are used under normal 
conditions, because these items do not emit any HAP, including the 
chemical manufacturing urban HAP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Article'' means a manufactured item: ``(1) Which is formed 
to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2) which has end 
use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design 
during end use; and (3) which does not release a toxic chemical 
under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at the 
facility or establishment.'' 40 CFR 372.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Emission Standards

1. Management Practices
    EPA proposed management practices for a number of emission points, 
including for process vents (batch, continuous, and metal HAP); storage 
tanks; transfer operations; and equipment leaks. The proposed 
management practices for process vents included covering all process 
tanks and mixing vessels during operation; maintaining covers in the 
closed position on all openings and access points in other process 
vessels; conducting quarterly inspections to check for leaks from the 
process vessels and determining the integrity of the process vessels 
and ensuring covers are being used; and repairing leaks within 15 days. 
EPA proposed these management practice requirements for all affected 
sources. For storage tanks, EPA proposed GACT as management practices 
consisting of quarterly inspections for leaks, minimizing and promptly 
cleaning up spills, and ensuring all openings and access points are 
closed for all storage tanks. For transfer operations, EPA proposed to 
minimize emissions using management practices, such as minimizing 
spills, cleaning up spills promptly, covering open containers when not 
in use, and minimizing discharges to open waste collection systems.
    In the final rule, the separate proposed management practices for 
process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and equipment leaks 
were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of 
management practices that are applicable to each CMPU. The 
comprehensive management practices in the final rule include 
requirements to equip each process vessel with a cover or lid that must 
be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP, except for 
material addition and sampling. The management practices also include 
sensory-based inspections of process vessels and equipment in each 
CMPU. Changes to management practices specific to small heat exchange 
systems are described in section III.B.2.f of this preamble.
2. Emission Limits and Emission Control Requirements
a. Continuous Process Vents and Batch Process Vents
    For continuous process vents with a total resource effectiveness 
(TRE) index of 1 or less, EPA proposed management practices and 95 
percent emission reduction of organic HAP emissions. After 
consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing management 
practices and the 95 percent emission reduction requirement for organic 
HAP emissions from continuous process vents. Based on public comments, 
the final rule includes a definition of continuous process vent that is 
based on the process vent definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F of 
the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON). In addition, the final rule 
includes a mass emission threshold of 0.1 pound per hour (lb/hr) or 
less, below which the TRE index calculation is not required.
    For facilities with batch process vents, EPA proposed management 
practices and a 90 percent organic HAP emission

[[Page 56011]]

reduction if the collective uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions 
from the sum of all batch process vents within the affected facility 
was 19,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr) or greater. The final rule requires 
management practices and 85 percent control (90 percent for new 
sources) if the total organic uncontrolled HAP emissions from batch 
process vents within a CMPU are 10,000 lbs/yr or greater. We 
established the control efficiency of 85 percent as GACT for existing 
area sources based on additional information provided by commenters. 
Under the final rule, emissions from any batch process vents may be 
estimated based on process knowledge, engineering assessment, and/or 
test data. The proposed requirement to use the calculation methodology 
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) for certain types of emission episodes is 
not required, but it is authorized under the final rule. The final rule 
also includes an expanded definition of batch process vent that 
includes examples of batch process vents and lists types of equipment 
and gas streams that are not batch process vents.
b. Metal HAP Process Vents
    EPA proposed management practices and 95 percent metal HAP emission 
reduction if the collective uncontrolled total metal HAP emissions from 
the sum of all metal HAP process vents was greater than 400 lbs/yr on a 
facility-wide basis. In addition to the 400 lbs/yr level, EPA co-
proposed a metal HAP threshold level of 100 lbs/yr on a facility-wide 
basis, and asked for public comment on the appropriate threshold to use 
for purposes of subcategorizing metal HAP process vents based on the 
factors discussed in the proposed rule. For metal HAP process vents 
with total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions less than the threshold, 
management practices would be required to reduce HAP emissions. After 
considering public comments, the final rule requires management 
practices and 95 percent reduction in metal HAP emissions from each 
CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP process vent emissions of 400 lbs/yr 
or greater.
c. Storage Tanks
    The proposed rule cross-referenced the thresholds for control, as 
well as the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. The final rule replaces the references to subpart Kb with 
references to the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 
63, subparts SS and WW and by directly specifying the applicable 
thresholds for control in Table 5 to the final rule. The capacity and 
maximum true vapor pressure thresholds for control in the final rule 
are the same as at proposal, but the final rule specifies that the 
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) threshold is to be based on the 
organic HAP content of the stored liquid, not the volatile organic 
liquid (VOL) content as specified in subpart Kb. As in other NESHAP, we 
intended to require MTVP determinations based on the organic HAP 
content in the stored liquid, but we inadvertently neglected to 
override the reference to VOL in the MTVP definition in subpart Kb. The 
standards and compliance procedures are essentially the same as at 
proposal, but the final rule references standards and compliance 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63 (Subparts SS and WW, and the General 
Provisions, Subpart A). The final rule also includes a vapor balancing 
compliance alternative that provides at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing. 
Based on public comments, we have determined that GACT for storage 
tanks that vent to a control device includes alternative procedures 
during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device. 
Therefore, the final rule specifies that no material may be added to 
the storage tank during periods of planned routine maintenance, and 
periods of planned routine maintenance may not exceed 240 hours per 
year (hrs/yr).
    Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers were included in the 
proposed definition of storage tank because we proposed that these 
types of vessels would be subject to the same standards as storage 
tanks. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers remain subject to 
the storage tank standards in the final rule. However, based on public 
comments, we removed surge control vessels and bottoms receivers from 
the definition of storage tank, and instead explicitly specify in 
section 63.11496(h) of the final rule that the storage tank standards 
apply to surge control vessels and bottoms receivers that meet the 
applicability criteria for storage tanks set forth in Table 5 of the 
final rule. All storage tanks that store liquid containing organic HAP 
and are part of a CMPU subject to the final rule are subject to the 
management practice requirements. In addition, the definition of 
storage tank in the final rule is changed to make the definition 
consistent with definitions in other NESHAP such as the Miscellaneous 
Organic NESHAP (MON), HON, and Pharmaceutical maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) standards by excluding wastewater storage 
tanks and tanks storing liquid containing organic HAP only as 
impurities.
d. Wastewater
    EPA proposed to subcategorize wastewater streams based on the size 
of the wastewater stream and determined that large wastewater streams 
were those with partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) concentrations of 10,000 
parts per million by weight (ppmw) or greater. For wastewater streams 
with PSHAP concentrations of less than 10,000 ppmw discharge, we 
proposed as GACT to send the wastewater stream to an onsite or offsite 
wastewater treatment process, and, for wastewater streams containing 
PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater, we proposed as GACT use 
of gravity separation or other techniques to separate organic and water 
layers and to send the water layer to a wastewater treatment process. 
We proposed that the organic layer must be recovered and reused in a 
process, used as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
    Based on comments, we are revising our subcategorization 
determination to account for wastewater streams with PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that do not have a separate 
organic layer. The separation techniques that we established as GACT 
for larger wastewater streams will not work for wastewater streams that 
contain only a water phase. For this reason, we are also now 
considering the type of stream in our subcategorization determination 
to account for the wastewater streams that do not separate at PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw. In the final rule, the larger wastewater 
stream subcategory is defined as those wastewater streams with PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that also have a separate 
organic layer.
    As stated above, the proposed GACT requirement for a wastewater 
stream that contains PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater was 
to separate the stream into the organic and aqueous phase and treat 
them according to the requirements in the proposed standards. The final 
rule retains these provisions for the newly defined large wastewater 
systems subcategory and also provides an alternative compliance option 
to hard-pipe the total stream to a combustion unit or other onsite 
hazardous waste treatment facility (or to a tank from which it is 
collected and shipped offsite). This alternative provides at least 
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the emission control 
requirements contained in this proposed rule. We are also finalizing 
the proposed requirement

[[Page 56012]]

for single phase wastewater streams and the aqueous phase for two phase 
streams that requires the wastewater streams be sent to a wastewater 
treatment process.
    Based on public comments, we also revised the definition of 
wastewater stream to be consistent with MON and HON wastewater stream 
definitions.
e. Transfer Operations
    EPA proposed that management practices to minimize evaporation 
losses and use of submerged loading were GACT for transfer operations. 
After considering public comments on the transfer operations 
requirements, we have replaced in some cases and revised in others the 
management practices for transfer operations and are promulgating a 
comprehensive management practice requirement (see discussion in 
section III.B.1 of this preamble), which includes inspection of 
transfer operations. In addition to the management practices, we have 
determined that GACT for most material transfers is the use of 
submerged loading or bottom loading. In response to public comments, we 
have added an alternative compliance option to route emissions to a 
fuel gas system or process in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS. This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing.
    Based on public comments, we have also determined that submerged or 
bottom loading is neither general industry practice nor GACT for the 
transfer of reactive and resinous materials because sources do not 
currently employ submerged or bottom loading for these materials due to 
operational issues. Therefore, the final rule defines reactive and 
resinous materials and requires sources to include in the initial 
Notifications of Compliance Status a list of any materials that meet 
these definitions. Source must also keep records of the use of these 
materials and report in the semiannual compliance report the use of any 
additional resinous or reactive materials occurring during the 
reporting period. Reactive materials are defined in the final rule as 
energetics, organic peroxides, and other unstable chemicals such as 
chemicals that react violently with water and chemicals that vigorously 
polymerize, decompose, condense, or become self-reactive under 
conditions of pressure or temperature. Resinous materials are defined 
in the final rule as viscous, high-boiling point material resembling 
pitch or tar that sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe under normal 
transfer conditions.
f. Heat Exchange Systems
    The proposed rule used the term ``cooling tower'' systems; however, 
we intended to regulate ``heat exchange'' systems as is consistent with 
the HON. We also intended to include ``once-through'' systems as part 
of the affected source. Therefore, the final rule uses the term ``heat 
exchange system'' in place of the proposed term ``cooling tower 
system.'' The final rule also includes a definition of ``heat exchange 
system'' that is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 63.101 of the 
HON and clearly specifies that once-through systems are included.
    After considering public comments, we have retained the proposed 
inspection and leak repair requirements for small heat exchange systems 
and monitoring and leak repair requirements for large heat exchange 
systems as the GACT requirements in the final rule. The proposed rule 
also required compliance with 40 CFR 63.104(a), and several commenters 
did not understand what that requirement meant. To address the 
confusion caused by the proposed rule, we clarified in the final rule 
that heat exchange systems meeting the conditions set forth in 40 CFR 
63.104(a) are not subject to the inspection or monitoring requirements 
contained in the final rule, as that is what we intended when we 
proposed the rule.
    As a compliance alternative to the requirement to perform repairs 
after an inspection of a small heat exchange system reveals indications 
of a potential leak into cooling water, the final rule also allows the 
owner or operator to demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the 
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined in 40 CFR 
63.104(b)(6). For both large and small heat exchange systems, the final 
rule also allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c). For equipment that meets 
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements in 21 CFR part 
211, the physical integrity of the reactor may be used as the surrogate 
indicator of heat exchange system leaks under 40 CFR 63.104(c). These 
compliance alternatives provide at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the emission control requirements contained in 
this final rule.
g. Equipment Leaks
    As discussed in section III.B.1 of this preamble, the proposed 
equipment leak requirements have been incorporated as part of the 
management practice requirements that apply to each CMPU subject to the 
final rule. However, following review of public comments, we added an 
alternative for equipment leaks in the final rule that allows an owner 
or operator to use Method 21 in lieu of sensory-based leak detection. 
Method 21 is at least equivalent to the leak inspection requirements we 
are finalizing in this rule.
h. Overlapping Rules
    The final rule specifies that when equipment at an affected source 
is subject to both this rule and the provisions of another rule, 
compliance with the requirements of the other rule constitutes 
compliance with this final rule for the subject equipment if the owner 
or operator determines that the other emission control, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and/or reporting requirements provide at least 
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions and compliance assurance 
as the requirements in the final rule. For example, if the control 
requirements in the other rule are at least as stringent as those 
provided in this rule, but the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 
requirement in the other rule are not as stringent or comprehensive, 
the source may comply with the control requirements from the other 
rule, but must comply with the more stringent monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule. The final rule 
requires a source that is subject to overlapping standards to identify 
in its Notification of Compliance Status all of the alternative 
requirements with which the source will be complying and provide an 
explanation of why the selected requirement is more stringent than this 
rule. The final rule also states that sources are responsible for 
making accurate determinations concerning the more stringent standard 
and noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later 
determined that the source was in error in its initial notification of 
compliance and, as a result, is violating this rule. Compliance with 
this rule is the responsibility of the affected source regardless of 
any notification of compliance.

C. Initial Compliance

    For some control devices, the proposed rule allowed initial 
compliance to be demonstrated using either design evaluations or 
performance tests, but performance tests were required for certain 
other control devices. In response to comments, the final rule allows 
design evaluations as an alternative to performance tests for all 
control devices.

[[Page 56013]]

    To clarify the initial compliance requirements for batch process 
vents and continuous process vents, some of the language from 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF that was referenced in Table 2 to the proposed 
rule has been written directly into 40 CFR 63.11496(g) of the final 
rule.

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    The proposed rule referenced parts of the General Provisions as 
well as subparts SS, FFFF, and NNNNNN in 40 CFR part 63 for all control 
device monitoring requirements. With two exceptions, these monitoring 
requirements are retained in the final rule. One change in the final 
rule is that pH may be measured once per day rather than continuously 
for any halogen scrubber. The second change from proposal is that Table 
9 to the final rule specifies that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply to 
affected sources under this rule. We made this change so that EPA 
Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and EPA Quality Assurance 
Procedure 4, when finalized, will not apply to affected sources under 
this rule.
    In addition to monitoring requirements, the proposed rule 
referenced recordkeeping requirements in several other rules. To 
clarify these requirements, 40 CFR 63.11501(c) of the final rule lists 
all of the recordkeeping requirements and references the specific 
section in each rule that requires it. The notification and reporting 
requirements have also been revised in the final rule. For example, 
additional notification requirements have been incorporated into the 
final rule for certain transfer operations and overlapping rules as 
discussed above.

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)

    During the comment period of the proposed rule, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated two 
provisions in EPA's CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions 
of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the 
Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of 
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated 
into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, 
these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with 
the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 
periods of SSM.
    Industry intervenors appealed the December 2008 Sierra Club 
decision by filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 2009, the 
District of Columbia Circuit denied these petitions. On August 5, 2009, 
EPA filed a motion seeking a 60-day stay of the mandate. On August 6, 
2009, industry intervenors filed a motion to stay the mandate pending 
their appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The 
Court recently denied industry intervenors' motion to stay the mandate 
and granted EPA's motion, directing the Clerk of the Court not to issue 
the mandate prior to October 6, 2009. Until the District of Columbia 
Circuit issues the mandate effectuating the vacatur, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
and (h)(1) remain in effect.
    The proposed rule included a reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 
(h)(1). In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we revised Table 9, which 
addresses the applicability of the Part 63 General Provisions to the 
source categories at issue in this rule, to state that 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As such, the final emission 
standards summarized in section IV of this preamble apply at all times. 
As noted in section IV of this preamble, we are setting a separate 
emission standard for the nine source categories at issue here that 
applies to continuous process vents during periods of startup and 
shutdown, and that standard is 85 percent control, instead of the 95 
percent control required at all other times. We are establishing a 
separate emission standard for these periods because they are 
characterized by activities such as the filling, emptying, and inerting 
of vessels, which generally result in significantly different emissions 
than normal operations. As for batch processes, startup and shutdown 
are part of their normal operations and, therefore, are already 
addressed by the standards. In addition, storage tanks, heat exchange 
systems, and transfer operations do not include startup and shutdown 
activities.
    We have also added language making clear that, to the extent this 
rule incorporates by reference emission standards from other CAA 
section 112(d) rules, and those rules contain an exemption from the 
applicable emission standard during periods of SSM, that exemption does 
not apply for purposes of this rule.

F. Title V

    Pursuant to section 502(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may ``in 
the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable 
provisions of [the Act], promulgate regulations to exempt one or more 
[non-major] source categories (in whole or in part) from the 
requirements of [title V] if the Administrator finds that compliance 
with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome on such categories. * * *'' We proposed to exempt the 
sources in the chemical manufacturing area source categories subject to 
this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since 
proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exemption and determined 
that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemption for certain 
synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for 
these categories, we did not consider the large number of synthetic 
area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source 
thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. The oversight 
occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules 
that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low 
emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the 
chemical manufacturing area source category, we estimate 75 facilities 
are synthetic area sources for HAP and at least 10 percent of these 
facilities have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, in 
the final rule, title V permits are required for area sources in the 
nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area 
sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduced their HAP 
emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air 
pollution control devices. We are, however, finalizing the exemption 
from the requirements of title V for those synthetic area sources that 
limited their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds solely 
by complying with operational limits (e.g., limiting the hours the 
facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources 
that neither installed controls nor took operational limits to become 
an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule finding that 
compliance with title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these source 
categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.
    Based on our additional review of the source categories since 
proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthetic area sources 
that installed controls is not appropriate given the facts associated 
with these sources as set forth below, and we do not believe title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unlike many other area

[[Page 56014]]

source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing 
the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the nine 
chemical manufacturing area source categories include a large number of 
synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become 
area sources. We evaluated other area source categories and determined 
that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted 
facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before 
control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we 
estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities that are synthetic 
area sources for HAP by virtue of installing controls would have 
uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tons per year. Synthetic area 
sources that installed controls represent more than 10 percent of the 
total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In 
fact, these sources are much more like the major sources of HAP subject 
to the HON and the MON. In addition, many of these sources are located 
in cities, and often in close proximity to residential and commercial 
centers where large numbers of people live and work. The record also 
indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly 
higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than the other sources in 
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories. For example, we 
have identified seven facilities that have uncontrolled emissions that 
exceed 100 tpy.
    For these reasons, we believe that the additional public 
participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, 
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that 
exist in title V should be the same for a major source that installed a 
control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that 
is major and installed a control device to comply with an applicable 
major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source 
levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the 
synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing 
add-on controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance 
programs in place because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed 
the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional 
public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title 
V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their 
emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on 
the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant 
because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated 
than the natural area sources and sources that took operational limits 
to become area sources.
    For these reasons above, we have decided not to finalize the title 
V exemption for these facilities. The final rule requires title V 
permits for major sources of HAP emissions that installed controls 
after 1990 to become area sources of HAP emissions. We estimate that 
approximately 150 sources that will be subject to this rule are 
required to have title V permits because of criteria pollutants and the 
final rule will require an additional 47 affected area sources to 
obtain title V permits.
    We are not requiring title V permits for sources that reduced their 
emissions to area source levels by taking operational restrictions, 
such as restricting hours of operation or production, or for natural 
area sources. We conclude that our analysis in the proposed rule that 
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for sources in the Chemical 
Manufacturing source categories remains accurate for the sources we are 
exempting.

IV. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

    The final NESHAP applies to each CMPU that is located at an area 
source of HAP emissions that uses as feedstocks, generates as 
byproducts, or produces as products any of the Table 1 HAP, where the 
Table 1 HAP are present in the feedstocks or are generated and present 
in the process fluid at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for 
carcinogens, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. A CMPU 
includes all process equipment, vents, and activities involved in the 
production of a material described by NAICS code 325, and it consists 
of one or more unit operations and all associated recovery devices. A 
CMPU also includes each surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, pump, 
compressor, agitator, pressure relief device or valve, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage 
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the 
production of NAICS code 325 materials. An affected source is the 
facility-wide collection of all CMPUs that use, generate, or produce 
one or more Table 1 HAP. An affected source also includes each heat 
exchange system and wastewater system that is associated with any CMPU 
that uses, generates, or produces one or more Table 1 HAP.
    The nine chemical manufacturing area source categories include 
production of most of the materials classified under NAICS 325. The 
final rule specifies applicability based on CMPUs that are used to 
produce chemicals classified under NAICS 325, except for production of 
materials in NAICS 325 that are subject to other area source standards, 
as specified in the rule, see 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(1), and specific 
operations that are not considered to be chemical manufacturing, such 
as photographic paper (NAICS 325992), as described in 40 CFR 
63.11494(c)(2) of the final rule.
    To be subject to the rule, the CMPU must use as feedstocks, 
generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the 15 chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. If the CMPU is subject to the final rule, the 
standards apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from the 
CMPU and all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from the CMPU, 
depending on the type of HAP that triggers applicability under the 
rule. Specifically, a CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required 
to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP from the CMPU, a CMPU 
using only Table 1 metal HAP is required to control all CAA section 
112(b) metal HAP from the CMPU, and a CMPU using both metal and organic 
Table 1 HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal and 
organic HAP

B. Compliance Dates

    All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this 
final rule must comply with the final rule requirements for their 
existing operations no later than October 29, 2012. A new area source 
must comply with the final rule requirements by October 29, 2009 or 
upon startup, whichever is later. For the purposes of determining 
compliance with the rule, a new source is a source that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after October 6, 2008.

C. Standards

    For each CMPU that is part of an affected source, the final rule 
requires you to implement management practices that apply to all 
process equipment and other equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and 
connectors) in the CMPU. In addition to the management practices, the 
final rule requires compliance with numerical emission limits and 
additional emission control requirements for certain process vents, 
storage tanks, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, wastewater 
systems,

[[Page 56015]]

and heat exchange systems that meet specified conditions. Management 
practice requirements and all numerical emission limits and other 
emission control requirements, except the emission limit for batch 
process vents, are the same at existing and new sources.
1. Management Practices
    Owners and operators of CMPUs subject to this rule are required to 
comply with the following management practice requirements. All process 
vessels must be equipped with a cover or lid that is in place at all 
times when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and 
sampling. Transfer of liquids containing chemical manufacturing organic 
urban HAP to tank trucks or railcars must be conducted using submerged 
loading or bottom loading, except for reactive or resinous materials. 
You must identify each reactive or resinous material in your 
Notification of Compliance Status or the semiannual compliance report 
that covers the period when the material is first transferred. You must 
also conduct inspections of equipment within the CMPU quarterly to 
demonstrate compliance with the above management practices and confirm 
that all CMPU are sound and free of leaks. Any leaks must be repaired 
within 15 days of finding the leak or you must document the reason for 
the delay. In addition, you must keep records of the inspection dates, 
inspection results, and the dates of equipment repairs.
    Owners or operators of small heat exchange systems that are part of 
a CMPU subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate of less 
than 8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) and that do not meet the 
criteria in 40 CFR 63.104(a) are required to develop a heat exchange 
system inspection plan that describes the inspections that will be 
performed to identify hydrocarbons in the cooling water. The 
inspections must be conducted quarterly and may include a number of 
sensory inspection options for determining indications of a leak, such 
as visible floating hydrocarbon, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, or 
chemical addition rates. You must either perform repairs to eliminate 
indications of a leak or take samples and determine there is no leak 
(as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6)). Repairs must be completed within 
45 days after the inspection during which you observe indications of a 
leak, or you must document the reason for the delay. In addition, you 
must keep records of the heat exchange system inspection dates, 
inspection results, and the dates of leak repairs.
    As an alternative to the management practice requirements for small 
heat exchange systems, the final rule allows compliance with the 
requirements for large heat exchange systems with flow rates of 8,000 
gal/min or greater (i.e., the HON heat exchange system requirements in 
40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c)).
2. Standards for Batch Process Vents
    Owners and operators of a CMPU with collective uncontrolled organic 
HAP emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 lbs/yr from all batch 
process vents associated with an affected CMPU must meet emission 
limits for the organic HAP emissions. Examples of batch process vents 
include, but are not limited to, vents on reactors, filters, 
centrifuges, condensers used for product recovery, and process tanks. 
These vents include intermittent emissions from continuous operations 
as well as emissions from batch operations.
    For an existing source, one control option is to reduce the 
collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the CMPU by at least 
85 percent by venting emissions from a sufficient number of vents 
through one or more closed vent system to any combination of control 
devices (excluding a flare). Alternatively, you may route uncontrolled 
organic HAP emissions from one or more batch process vents within the 
CMPU through one or more closed vent systems and meet an outlet 
concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (as total 
organic carbon or total organic HAP) or through a closed vent system to 
a flare, and comply with the 85 percent reduction for the remaining 
vents in the CMPU. For a new source, the requirements are the same as 
for an existing source, except the required reduction is 90 percent 
instead of 85 percent.
    When halogenated organic HAP compounds from batch process vents are 
controlled by combustion, you must also reduce the hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP generated in the combustion device by at least 95 percent, 
to no more than 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to no more than 20 
ppmv. As an alternative to post-combustion halogen control, you may 
instead reduce the halogen atom mass emissions prior to the combustion 
device to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or 20 ppmv.
3. Standards for Continuous Process Vents
    We are finalizing the proposed GACT requirements for organic HAP 
emissions from each continuous process vent with a TRE index value less 
than or equal to 1.0. Specifically, organic HAP emissions from each 
continuous process vent with a TRE index value less than or equal to 
1.0 must meet any one of several emission control alternatives. One 
option is to reduce the organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by 
routing through a closed vent system to one or more control devices. 
Alternatively, you may route the emissions to a flare, or you may meet 
the concentration option described above for batch process vents. 
Because a continuous process vent is determined after the last recovery 
device, another option is to use a recovery device from which the vent 
stream is determined to have a TRE greater than 1.0. In addition, we 
are establishing a requirement to reduce the organic HAP emissions from 
continuous process vents with a TRE less than 1.0 by at least 85 
percent during periods of startup and shutdown. Halogenated organic 
emissions from continuous process vents are subject to the same 
requirements described above for halogenated organic HAP emissions from 
batch process vents.
4. Standards for Metal HAP Process Vents
    Owners and operators are required to reduce metal HAP emissions by 
at least 95 percent from each CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP 
emissions of 400 lbs/yr or more. The metal HAP process vent emissions 
must be routed through a closed-vent system to a control device.
5. Standards for Storage Tanks, Surge Control Vessels, and Bottoms 
Receivers
    We are finalizing the proposed emission controls for emissions from 
storage tanks, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers that have 
(1) a capacity of 40,000 gallons or greater with vapor pressure of 
total organic HAP of 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) or greater and less than 
76.6 kPa or (2) a capacity of 20,000 gallons or greater and less than 
40,000 gallons with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 27.6 kPa or 
greater and less than 76.6 kPa. Control options in the final rule 
include: (1) Use of an internal or external floating roof; (2) venting 
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces organic 
HAP emissions by at least 95 percent; (3) vapor balancing to the tank 
truck or railcar from which the tank is filled; (4) routing to a flare; 
or (5) routing to a fuel gas system or process. Storage tanks, surge 
control vessels, and bottoms receivers with capacity of 20,000 gallons 
or greater with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 76.6 kPa or 
greater must be controlled using any of the above

[[Page 56016]]

options except a floating roof. Storage tanks, surge control vessels, 
or bottoms receivers with a vent stream that contains halogenated 
compounds and that is controlled by combustion must also meet the same 
requirements described above for halogenated batch process vents.
6. Standards for Wastewater Systems
    All wastewater discarded from a CMPU subject to the rule must be 
treated. In addition, each process wastewater stream and each 
maintenance wastewater stream in which the total PSHAP concentration is 
10,000 ppmw or greater, and which contains both an organic and an 
aqueous phase, must be decanted or separated by other techniques. 
Alternatively, wastewater streams that meet these conditions may be 
hard piped to onsite treatment as hazardous waste or hard piped to a 
collection tank or other vessel and shipped offsite for any of the same 
types of treatment. If the wastewater is separated into organic and 
aqueous layers, the organic material must be recycled to a process, 
used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste. The separated aqueous 
phase, like other process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that 
does not separate into an organic and an aqueous phase, must receive 
some type of treatment, either onsite or offsite, as described above.
7. Standards for Heat Exchange Systems
    Owners or operators of heat exchange systems with cooling water 
flow rate of 8,000 gal/min or greater must develop and operate in 
accordance with a monitoring plan that documents the procedures to be 
used to detect leaks of process fluids into cooling water. The plan 
must require monitoring of one or more surrogate indicators or 
monitoring of one or more process parameters or other conditions that 
indicate a leak. You must conduct the monitoring at least quarterly. 
Leaks must be repaired within 45 calendar days after detection unless 
specified conditions for delay of repair are met. You must keep records 
of leaks detected by methods described in your monitoring plan or by 
other methods, and you must keep records of the dates of repairs. A 
compliance alternative has been incorporated into the final rule that 
allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40 
CFR 63.104(b). This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of 
HAP emission reductions as the standards that we are finalizing today.

D. Initial Compliance Requirements

    To demonstrate initial compliance with the management practices in 
the final rule, owners and operators of affected new and existing 
sources must certify that they have implemented all required management 
practices by the compliance date. To demonstrate initial compliance 
with the emissions control requirements, by the compliance date, the 
source must install and have operational, any required add on control 
equipment and/or have implemented any design requirements necessary to 
comply with the applicable standard.
    For batch process vents and metal HAP process vents, owners and 
operators must either calculate uncontrolled emissions or demonstrate 
that organic HAP usage is below 10,000 lb/yr or metal HAP usage is 
below 400 lb/yr. The final rule specifies that HAP emissions or usage 
may be determined based on process knowledge, engineering assessments, 
or test data. For continuous process ven