-4
EPA-453/R-94-0036
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from Process Units in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry--
Background Information
for Final Standards
Volume 2E: Comments on
Recordkeeping, Reporting,
Compliance, and Test Methods
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
March 1 994
flop •
Region™'!/ ' " ' ' ! r^;:*n to»cy
,
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards
Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are
available through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, or from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Background Information and Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions from Process Units in the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Volume 2E: Comments on Recordkeeping,
Reporting, Compliance, and Test Methods
Prepared by:
Bruce Jordan (Date)
Director, ^Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1. The standards regulate emissions of organic hazardous
air pollutants (HAP's) emitted from chemical
manufacturing process units in the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and from other
processes subject to the negotiated regulation for
equipment leaks. Only those chemical manufacturing
process units that are part of major sources under
Section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) will be
regulated. The standards will reduce emissions of 112
of the organic chemicals identified in the Act list of
189 HAP's.
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Labor, Health and Human Services,
Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce,
Interior, and Energy; the National Science Foundation;
and the Council on Environmental Quality. Copies have
also been sent to members of the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators; the Association
of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; EPA Regional
Administrators; and other interested parties.
3. For additional information contact:
Dr. Janet Meyer
Standards Development Branch (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-5254
-------
Paper copies of this document may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4650
Electronic copies of this document may be obtained from
the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN is
an electronic bulletin board system which is free,
except for the normal long distance charges. To access
the HON BID:
• Set software to data bits: 8, N; stop bits: 1
Use access number (919) 541-5742 for 1200, 2400,
or 9600 bps modems [access problems should be
directed to the system operator at (919)
541-5384].
• Specify TTN Bulletin Board: Clean Air Act
Amendments
• Select menu item: Recently Signed Rules
-------
OVERVIEW
Emission standards under section 112(d) of the Clean Air
Act (Act) apply to new and existing sources in each listed
category of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission sources.
This background information document (BID) provides summaries
and responses for public comments received regarding the
Hazardous Organic National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), commonly referred to as the HON. The HON
will primarily affect the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI). However, the provisions for
equipment leaks also apply to certain polymer and resin
production processes, certain pesticide production processes,
and certain miscellaneous processes that are subject to the
negotiated regulation for equipment leaks.
This BID comprises six volumes as follows1:
• Volume 2A: Comments on Process Vents, Storage
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Equipment Leaks
(EPA-453/R-94-003a);
• Volume 2B: Comments on Wastewater
(EPA-453/R-94-003b);
• Volume 2C: Comments on Emissions Averaging
(EPA-453/R-94-003C);
• Volume 2D: ' Comments on Applicability, National
Impacts, and Overlap with Other Rules
(EPA-453/R-94-003d);
Volume 2E: Comments on Recordkeeping, Reporting,
Compliance, and Test Methods (EPA-453/R-94-003e);
and
• Volume 2F: Commenter Identification List
(EPA-453/R-94-003f).
Volume 2A is organized by emission point and contains
discussions of specific technical issues related to process
-------
vents, storage vessels, transfer operations, and equipment
leaks. Volume 2A discusses specific technical issues such as
control technology, cost analysis, emission estimates,
Group I/Group 2 determination, compliance options and
demonstrations, and monitoring.
Volume 2B addresses issues related to controlling
emissions from wastewater. Specific technical issues include
control technology, cost analysis, emission estimates,
Group I/Group 2 determination, compliance options and
demonstrations, and monitoring.
Volume 2C contains the EPA's decisions regarding
emissions averaging. Specific issues include the scope of
emissions averaging in the HON, specific provisions related to
credits and banking, and enforcement of an emissions averaging
system for the HON.
Volume 2D discusses applicability of the HON in terms of
selection of source category, selection of source, and •
selection of pollutants. Volume 2D also addresses the process
for determination of the MACT floor and selection of the
specific applicability thresholds for process vents, storage
vessels, transfer racks, wastewater operations, and equipment
leaks.
Volume 2E discusses the provisions for compliance,
recordkeeping and reporting. Volume 2E also discusses issues
related to the use of EPA test methods.
Volume 2F of each volume contains a list of commenters,
their affiliations, and the EPA docket and item number
assigned to each comment.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST ix
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 2-1
2.1 FIVE REPORT SYSTEM 2-1
2.1.1 Initial Notification 2-2
2.1.1.1 New Sources 2-2
2.1.1.2 Area Sources 2-5
2.1.1.3 Compliance Timing and
Extensions 2-7
2.1.2 Implementation Plan 2-8
2.1.3 Notification of Compliance Status . . . 2-20
2.1.4 Periodic Reports 2-21
2.1.5 Other Reports . . 2-24
2.2 FREQUENCY OF REPORTING 2-25
2.3 RECORDKEEPING FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS
AND RECORD RETENTION 2-29
2.3.1 Data Collection and Recording
Frequency * 2-29
2.3.2 Data Compression Systems 2-37
2.3.3 Current Use of Automated and Non-
Automated Monitoring Systems 2-43
2.3.4 Record Retention Time and
Accessibility 2-47
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP 2 EMISSION POINTS . . . 2-50
2.5 MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING BURDEN 2-51
2.5.1 General 2-51
2.5.2 Violations 2-55
2.5.4 Compliance with the General Provisions . 2-60
2.5.5 Impact on Regulatory Agencies 2-61
2.6 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING CONSISTENCY WITH
OTHER REQUIREMENTS 2-61
2.7 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING . . . 2-65
Vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
3.0 COMPLIANCE 3-1
3.1 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE 3-1
3.2 THE ROLE OF MONITORING IN DETERMINING
COMPLIANCE 3-7
3.2.1 Compliance Certification 3-7
3.2.2 Use of Operating Parameter Monitoring to
Determine Compliance 3-8
3.2.3 Site-Specific Ranges 3-13
3.2.4 Continuous Emission Monitoring 3-16
3.2.5 Excused Excursions 3-21
3.2.6 Emissions Averaging Monitoring
Requirements 3-29
3.2.7 Other 3-29
3.3 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MONITORING 3-31
3.4 PERFORMANCE TESTING 3-33
3.5 ENFORCEMENT 3-35
3.6 START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PLAN . . . 3-40
3.7 MISCELLANEOUS COMPLIANCE 3-42
4.0 TEST METHODS 4-1
4.1 METHOD 18 4-1
4.2 METHOD 25D 4-3
4.3 METHOD 304 4-7
4.4 METHOD 305 4-22
viii
-------
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
ACRONYM
Act
ALAPCO
ASPEN
BACT
BAT
BD
BID
,BIF
CEM
CFR
CMA
CMPU
CO
CTG
CWA
DMS
DOT
DRE
EB/S
EDC
EFR
EO
E.O.
EPA
Fe
Fm
FR
Fr
FTIR
HAP
TERM
Clean Air Act
Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officers
advanced system for process
engineering
best available control technology
best available technology
butadiene
background information document
boilers and industrial furnaces
continuous emissions monitoring
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical Manufacturers Association
chemical manufacturing process unit
carbon monoxide
control techniques guideline
Clean Water Act
dual mechanical seal
Department of Transportation
destruction and removal efficiency
ethyIbenz ene/styrene
ethylene dichloride
external floating roof
ethylene oxide
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
fraction emitted
fraction measured
FEDERAL REGISTER
fraction removed
Fourier transform infrared
hazardous air pollutant
IX
-------
ACRONYM AND
ACRONYM
HON
IFR
LDAR
LAER
MACT
MIBK
MR
NCS
NESHAP
NOX
NPDES
NRDC
NSPS
NSR
OCCM
OCPSF
OMB
OSHA
P.L.
PAY
POM
POTW
PRA
PRV
PSD
QIP
ABBREVIATION LIST, CONTINUED
TERM
hazardous organic national emission
standards for hazardous air
pollutants
internal floating roof
leak detection and repair
lowest achievable emission rate
maximum achievable control technology
methyl isobutyl ketone
mass removal (actual)
Notification of Compliance Status
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Natural Resources Defense Council
new source performance standards
new source review
Office of Air Quality .Planning and
Standards Control Cost Manual
organic chemicals, plastics, and
synthetic fibers
Office of Management and Budget
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Public Law
product accumulator vessel
polycyclic organic matter
publicly owned treatment works
Paperwork Reduction Act
pressure relief valve
prevention of significant
deterioration
quality improvement program
-------
ACRONYM
ACRONYM
R & D
RCRA
RCT
RIA
RMR
SARA
SIP
SMS
SOCMI
STAPPA
TAG
TACB
TCI
THC
TIC
TOC
TRE
TRI
TSDF
VHAP
VO
VOC
VOHAP
AND ABBREVIATION LIST, CONTINUED
TERM
research and development
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
reference control technology
Regulatory Impact Analysis
required mass removal
Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act
State Implementation Plan
single mechanical seal
synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry
State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators
total annual cost
Texas Air Control Board
total capital investment
total hydrocarbon
total industry control
total organic compound
total resource effectiveness
toxics release inventory
treatment, storage, and disposal
facility
volatile hazardous air pollutant
volatile organics measurable by
Method 25D
volatile organic compound
volatile organic hazardous air
pollutant
ABBREVIATION
bbl
BOB
UNIT O
barrel
barrels of oil equivalent
xi
-------
ACRONYM
ABBREVIATION
Btu
Btu/kW-hr
oF
gal
gpm
hr
kg/hr
kPa
kW-hr/yr
£/hour«m2
gal
m3
Mg
mg
mg/dscm
MW
ppb
ppm
ppmv
ppmw
psia
scm/min
TJ
yr
AND ABBRIEVIATION LIST, CONTINUED
UNIT OF MEASURE
British thermal unit
British thermal unit per
kilowatt-hour
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
gallon
gallons per minute
hour
kilograms per hour
kilopascals
kilowatt-hour per year
liters per hour per square meter
liters per minute
gallons
cubic meters
megagrams
milligrams
milligram per dry standard cubic
meter
megawatts
parts per billion
parts per million
parts per million by volume
parts per million by weight
pounds per square inch absolute
standard cubic meter per minute
terajoules
year
XI1
-------
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS
Accidental release prevention rule means the rule located in
subpart C of part 68 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. This rule implements section 112(r) of the Act.
This rule proposed a list of chemicals and threshold
quantities that will identify facilities subject to subsequent
accident prevention regulations to ensure that facilities
reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental chemical
releases that could harm the public and the environment. The
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1993 (58 FR 5102).
Act means the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990.
Administrator means the Administrator of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency or his or her authorized
representative (e.g., a State that has been delegated the
authority to implement the provisions of part 63).
Enhanced monitoring rule means the rule to be located in
sections 64.1 through 64.9 of part 64 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. This rule implements section 702(b)
of title VII of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This rule
establishes the criteria and procedures that owners or
operators must satisfy in evaluating, selecting and
demonstrating enhanced monitoring, and includes appendices
containing enhanced monitoring performance and quality
assurance requirements. The enhanced monitoring rule dbes not
apply to sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, and therefore does
not apply to sources subject to the HON. The proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1993
(58 FR 54648) .
General Provisions means the general provisions located in
subpart A of part 63 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. These General Provisions codify national
xiii
-------
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS, CONTINUED
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
source categories covered under section 112 of the Act as
amended November 15, 1990.
Implementing agency means the Administrator of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency or a State, federal, or other
agency that has been delegated the authority to implement the
provisions of part 63. Under section 112(1) of the Act,
States and localities may develop and submit to the
Administrator for approval a program for the implementation
and enforcement of emission*standards. A program submitted by
the State under section 112(1) of the Act may provide for
partial or complete delegation of the Administrator's
authorities and responsibilities to implement and enforce
emission standards.
Operating permit program rule means the rule located in
sections 70.1 through 70.11 of part 70 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule
implements section 502(b) of title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Under this rule, States are required to develop,
and to submit to the EPA, programs for issuing operating
permits to major stationary sources (including major sources
of hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112 of the Act),
sources covered by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
sources covered by emissions standards for hazardous air
pollutants pursuant to section 112 of the Act, and affected
sources under the acid rain program. The final rule was
published in the Federal Register on July 21, 1992
(57 FR 32250).
Permitting authority means: (I) the State air pollution
control agency, local agency, other State agency, or other
agency authorized by the Administrator to carry out a permit
xiv
-------
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS, CONTINUED
program under part 70; or (2) the Administrator, in the case
of EPA-implemented permit programs under part 71.
Section 112(q) rule means the rule to be located in subpart B
of part 63 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rule implements section 112(g) of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. This rule will impose control technology
requirements on "constructed, reconstructed or modified" major
sources of hazardous air pollutants not already regulated by a
section 112(d) or 112(j) MACT standard.
Section 112(1) rule means the rule located in subpart E of
part 63 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under
this rule, a State or locality may submit a program to the
Administrator to request partial or complete delegation of the
Administrator's authorities and responsibilities to implement
and enforce section 112 emission standards. The final rule
was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1993
(58 FR 62262) .
Title III means title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Section 112 of the Act authorizes the EPA to
establish MACT standards.
Title V means title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
which authorizes the EPA to establish the operating permit
program.
Title VII means title VII of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Section 702(b) of the Act authorizes the EPA to
establish compliance certification procedures. The part 64
enhanced monitoring rule implements section 702(b).
xv
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On December 31, 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed the Hazardous Organic National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for process
units in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
(SOCMI) under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(57 FR 62608). Public comments were requested on the proposed
standard and comment letters were received from industry
representatives, governmental entities, environmental groups,
and private citizens. Two public meetings were held, one in
Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, on February 25,
1993, and another in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on
March 18, 1993. Both hearings were open to the public and
5 persons in RTP and 45 persons in Baton Rouge presented oral
testimony on the proposed NESHAP.
On August 11, 1993, the General Provisions for part 63
(58 FR 42760) were proposed. In order to allow the public to
comment on how the General Provisions relate to the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON), a supplemental notice (October 15, 1993;
58 FR 53478) was published. Public comments were requested on
the overlap between the General Provisions and the HON and on
some specific emissions averaging issues. Comment letters
regarding the supplemental notice were received from
80 commenters.
The written comments that were submitted and verbal
comments made at the public hearing regarding the policy and
technical issues associated with recordkeeping and reporting,
compliance, and test methods in the proposed rule and
supplemental notice, along with responses to these comments,
are summarized in the following chapters. In chapter 2.0, the
1-1
-------
EPA responds to comments pertaining to the recordkeeping and
reporting required by the HON. Chapter 3.0 provides
summarized comments and responses on compliance matters.
Chapter 4.0 contains the summarized comments regarding test
methods utilized in the HON. The summary of comments and
responses serves as the basis for the revisions made to the
NESHAP between proposal and promulgation.
1-2
-------
2.0 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
2.1 FIVE REPORT SYSTEM
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) supported the
proposed three-step system for one-time reporting, comprised
of an Initial Notification, Implementation Plan (if no permit
application has been filed), and Notification of Compliance
Status. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested
compiling all notifications and reports into the Initial
Notification, Implementation Plan, or permit application, and
Periodic Report, and not requiring any other additional
notifications or reports.
Response: The EPA believes that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the HON are the minimum necessary to
determine compliance on a continuous basis. Sources are
required to submit the following five types of reports:
(1) Initial Notification; (2) Implementation Plan;
(3) Notification of Compliance Status; (4) Periodic Reports;
and (5) other reports. The Initial Notification establishes
an early dialogue between the source and the implementing
agency, and allows both to plan for compliance activities.
The Implementation Plan provides the details of how the source
plans to comply with subpart G of the HON in those cases when
an operating permit application has not already been
submitted. The Notification of Compliance Status includes
information necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been
achieved, such as the results of performance tests, TRE
determinations, and design analyses. The periodic reports are
used to show that control devices continue to be operated and
maintained properly and to identify periods when the values of
monitored parameters are outside the specified ranges. A
2-1
-------
limited number of other reports are required when it is
necessary for the source to provide information to the
implementing agency shortly before or after a specific event.
The necessary information could not be included in the
periodic report since the owner or operator will need a quick
response from the implementing agency.
Commenter A-90-19: IV-D-73 is implicitly asking the EPA
to remove from the HON the requirements for submitting the
Notification of Compliance Status and other reports. For the
reasons stated above, the EPA considers the timely submission
of these reports essential to the successful implementation
and compliance determinations of the HON, and the reports will
not be removed from the rule.
2.1.1 Initial Notification
2.1.1.1 New Sources
Comment; Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74; IV-K-24;
IV-K-73) stated that the provisions requiring submittal of an
Initial Notification for new sources are burdensome. One of
the commenters (A-90-19: IV-K-73) argued that the Initial
Notification is redundant with title V requirements. Two of
the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74; IV-K-24) stated that the
purpose of this notification has not been made clear. One of
the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74) requested that the EPA
review the HON reporting requirements for new sources taking
into consideration that for existing technology-based
programs, such as NSPS, notifications are not submitted by the
source until construction has commenced and subsequent notices
inform the agency of the start-up of the source.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-29; IV-K-6; IV-K-66)
requested that the EPA clarify the notification requirements
in the General Provisions and the HON by choosing one deadline
for notification. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-73)
requested that the 45 days for preparation of the Initial
Notification contained in the proposed HON be extended to
90 days to allow a source enough time to review and prepare
the notification. Regarding new sources, the commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-29) noted that §63.9(b)(4)(i) of the draft
2-2
-------
General Provisions requires an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction, and §63.151(b)(2)(ii) of the
proposed RON requires that the Initial Notification be
submitted at least 180 days before construction is planned to
commence.
Response; The provisions regarding submittal of the
Initial Notification for new sources have been revised. In
the final rule, new sources that start-up more than 90 days
after promulgation are not required to submit an Initial
Notification. Instead, these new sources are required to
submit an application for approval of construction or
reconstruction as described in §§63.5(d) and 63.9(b)(5) of the
General Provisions. The application is due 180 days before
commencement of construction, or 90 days after promulgation of
the HON, whichever is later. The HON rule is changing the due
date contained in the General Provisions §63.5(d) to 90 days
after promulgation for submittal of the application. Because
SOCMI sources are large and diverse and individual sources may
have hundreds of emission points subject to the HON rule, and
because of the complexity of the HON rule, a source may need
more time than 45 days to review the promulgated rule and
prepare the application. The Initial Notification is not
required for these new sources because the information will be
contained in the application for approval of construction or
reconstruction. Instead, these new sources must submit the
application for approval of construction or reconstruction
with the Implementation Plan 180 days before commencement of
construction or 90 days after promulgation of the HON,
whichever is later.
However, new sources that have already started up prior
to 90 days after promulgation are not required by the General
Provisions or the HON rule to submit an application for
approval of construction or reconstruction, because
construction has already been completed. These sources will
be required to submit an Initial Notification and an
Implementation Plan within 90 days after promulgation of the
HON.
2-3
-------
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-67; IV-D-74)
opposed the provisions in proposed S63.151 (b)(2)(ii)
requiring the Initial Notification to be submitted ISO days
prior to the construction of a new source or reconstruction of
an existing source, which would constitute a new source for
the purposes of this rule. The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-67;
IV-D-74) stated that depending on the definition of
construction and reconstruction, the source could experience
delays for some projects.
One of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-67) suggested that
provisions for agency review of new sources prior to
construction similar to General Provisions in 40 CFR part 61
be written into the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) asserted that this would allow a
source to start construction as soon as authorization is
received from the regulatory agency, which could be sooner
than 180 days.
Response: As described in the previous response, new
sources that start up more than 90 days after promulgation are
not required to submit an Initial Notification. These sources
are required to submit an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction and the information required in
the Initial Notification will already be contained in the
application. . The application and the Implementation Plan are
due 180 days before commencement of construction, or 90 days
after promulgation, whichever is later. A source is always
allowed to submit a report prior to the due date.
Coimnefiti; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-73) argued that
the Initial Notification is redundant with title V
requirements, where sources will be required to inventory all
emission points and emissions, and detail their compliance
strategies.
Response: As discussed already, new sources that start
more than 90 days after promulgation are not required to
submit an Initial Notification. These new sources are
required to submit an application for approval of construction
or reconstruction. New sources that have already started up
2-4
-------
prior to 90 days after promulgation are not required to submit
an application for approval of construction or reconstruction,
because construction has already been completed, but are
required to submit an Initial Notification. While it is true
that the operating permit program does require an inventory of
all emission points and detailed compliance strategies, the
purpose of the Initial Notification is to list the chemical
manufacturing process units that are subject to subpart G, and
which provisions may apply (e.g., process vents, transfer
operations, storage vessels, and/or wastewater provisions). A
detailed identification of emission points is not necessary
for the Initial Notification. A source is not required to
detail their compliance strategy, as the commenter had
suggested in their comment. However, the notification must
include a statement of whether the source expects that it can
achieve compliance by the specified compliance date.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74; IV-K-24)
expressed concern that substantial technical information must
be submitted with the Initial Notification for new sources
that may comply using emissions averaging. This information,
which includes the definition of each point and the specific
control technology for each point, may not be known 180 days
in advance of commencement of construction. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-74) stated that construction permits may be
granted based on a generic control efficiency requirement
without specification of the device and therefore decisions on
control device may not be made until after commencement of
construction.
Response: During the period between proposal and
promulgation, the EPA reviewed the emissions averaging
provisions and decided not to allow new sources to use
emissions averaging. A discussion of this emissions averaging
decision is contained in section 2.3.2 of BID volume 2C.
2.1.1.2 Area Sources
Comment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-26; IV-D-32;
IV-D-73; IV-D-98; IV-K-6; IV-K-24) opposed the provisions in
§63.I51(b)(1)(vi) requiring area sources to submit an Initial
2-5
-------
Notification, which would include an analysis demonstrating
that they are an area source. Two of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-26; IV-D-73) noted that area sources are not subject to
subpart G of the HON. The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-26;
IV-D-73) argued that this level of reporting is burdensome and
unnecessary for area sources and recommended deleting the
requirement from the final rule. Three commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-26; IV-D-73; IV-K-6) went on to state that proposed
§63.151(b) limits applicability to sources subject to
subpart G, that the applicability of subpart G is limited to
major sources [proposed §63.100(b)(1)(i)], and that the Act
does not require such a notification from area sources.
On the other hand, one commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-72)
supported requiring both affected (major) and unaffected
(area) sources to submit an Initial Notification to allow the
EPA to make a determination as to whether the source must
comply with the HON or not. Although, the commenter (A-90-19:
IV-K-72) recognized that requiring unaffected sources to
submit an Initial Notification would be an additional
reporting burden for the industry, the commenter felt this
burden was outweighed by the advantages of all sources being
made aware of the rule, so as to ensure identification of all
affected sources.
Response: The final HON does not require area sources to
submit an Initial Notification. The proposed General
Provisions requested comment on whether to require an Initial
Notification by area sources and commenters responded that
area sources would not be subject to some NESHAP, such as the
HON, and therefore should not be required to submit reports.
Thus, the final General Provisions were revised and no longer
require that area sources submit the Initial Notification.
For these reasons, and so the HON would be consistent with the
General Provisions, the provisions in the HON requiring an
analysis to demonstrate that a source is an area source were
removed from subpart G.
The EPA agrees with the concern of commenter (A-90-19:
IV-K-72) that all affected sources comply with the HON.
2-6
-------
Because each source within a regulated category of sources
must determine whether it is a major or area source and
maintain a record of this determination, each source would
know whether they were subject to the HON or not.
2.1.1.3 Compliance Timing and Extensions
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) stated that
at the time the Initial Notification is submitted (120 days
after promulgation), it will be difficult to determine whether
a source can achieve compliance by the compliance date and
that this requirement [proposed §63.151(b)(1)(v)] should be
deleted from the final rule.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-29) was uncertain when to
submit the request for compliance extension because the HON
proposal overrode §§63.9(c) and 63.9(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the
draft General Provisions, which required the submittal of a
request for a compliance extension with the Initial
Notification.
Response: The purpose of the statement required by
S63.151(b)(1)(v) of the HON is merely to determine if the
source anticipates having problems complying by the compliance
date. This statement is not enforceable. As stated in
§63.151(a)(6) of the proposed rule, requests for compliance
extensions shall be submitted with the operating permit
application. However, if a State does not yet have an
approved operating permit program, the extension request may
be submitted with the Initial Notification or as a separate
submittal no later than the date the Implementation Plan is
due. For an existing source, this would be 18 months before
the compliance date for emission points included in an
emissions average, and 12 months before the compliance date
for emission points not included in an emissions average.
This timing is consistent with §63.6(i) of the General
Provisions.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) requested
that the EPA consider modifying the definitions of
construction and reconstruction to allow equipment purchases
2-7
-------
to occur without triggering submission of the Initial
Notification.
Response: The definitions of construction and
reconstruction are contained in the General Provisions. The
General Provisions state that if the fixed capital cost of the
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of
constructing a comparable new source in that source category,
and it is technologically and economically feasible for the
reconstructed source to meet the promulgated emission
standard, then the source is considered to be "reconstructed"
and is subject to new source provisions of any NESHAP. In
such a case, the source will be reguired to submit all
required reports, including the Initial Notification or
application for approval of construction or reconstruction, as
applicable, for a new source. Provisions have been added to
§63.102(1) of subpart F that clarify how do determine whether
an addition or change constitutes a new or reconstructed
source. This section cross-references and is consistent with
the General Provisions. Section 63.100(1) also specifies
reporting requirements.
It should be noted that, given the fairly broad
definition of "source" in the HON, replacement of a single
piece of equipment is unlikely to result in the source being
considered new or reconstructed. Instead, the new equipment
is likely to be considered an addition to the existing source
and thus would have to meet the provisions for existing
sources.
2.1.2 Implementation Plan
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-0-74) stated that
the provisions requiring submittal of an Implementation Plan
are burdensome and that the purpose of this report has not
been made clear.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-86) supported the
provisions requiring sources to submit an Implementation Plan
only if an application for an operating permit has not been
submitted.
2-8
-------
Response; Implementation Plans are required only for
sources that have not previously submitted an operating permit
application. If an operating permit program is in place in
time, then the source will submit an operating permit
application, and an Implementation Plan is not required. The
operating permit application would contain all the types of
information required in the Implementation Plan, so it would
be redundant to require sources to submit both.
It is critical that the implementing agency have the
Implementation Plans well before the compliance date so they
can plan their implementation and enforcement activities.
Submission of these plans may also benefit regulated sources
by allowing them to receive feedback on their control plans
prior to the actual compliance dates. The Implementation Plan
will not be overly burdensome because sources are expected to
have the information required in the Implementation Plan
available by the time the plan is required (12 or 18 months
before compliance). Regardless of the Implementation Plan, a
source would need to know which points are Group 1 and what
controls will be applied to each point by this time in order
to install controls prior to the compliance date.
The Implementation Plan for points included in an
emissions average are more detailed and thorough than the
plans for other emission points. This additional information
is necessary for the implementing agency to make an informed
decision about approving the average. Because of the
complexities and site-specific nature of emissions averaging,
an approval process is necessary to assure all parties that
the specific plan will result in emissions credits outweighing
debits.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) agreed with
the proposed 12- and 18-month deadlines for sources to submit
the Implementation Plan. Another commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-85) suggested that Implementation Plans be submitted
12 months after promulgation or 24 months before compliance
because review of plans will take a substantial amount of time
2-9
-------
and if a plan is disapproved the source will need time to
adjust their compliance plans before the compliance date.
Response; After consideration, the EPA concluded that
the current deadline system is reasonable and allows enough
time for review by the implementing agency. One consideration
is that it would be difficult for sources to develop complete
plans in just 12 months. Sources may have hundreds of
emission points subject to subpart G. It will take time for
them to develop data characterizing each emission point in
order to determine whether it is Group 1 or Group 2. For
process vents and wastewater, testing may be necessary to make
the group determination. The owner or operator will then need
time to investigate the feasibility and costs of the various
alternative control devices that can be used to achieve
compliance and to investigate emissions averaging
possibilities. After a decision is made, time is needed to
prepare the written Implementation Plan.
The final rule reflects a balance between the time needed
to prepare and to review the Implementation Plan within the
three-year compliance timeframe. As at proposal,
Implementation Plans for existing sources are due 12 months
before compliance for emission points not included in emission
averages, and 18 months before compliance for points in
emissions averages. In the final rule, provisions were added
requiring that Implementation Plans for sources that are
emissions averaging be approved, whereas Implementation Plans
for points not included in emissions averaging do not require
approval. The schedule for new sources has been slightly
revised in response to comments. See the response to the
following comment for more details on this subject.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) opposed the
provisions in proposed §63.151(c)(2)(ii) requiring a new
source that has commenced construction after the rule was
proposed but before the rule was promulgated to submit an
Implementation Plan within 45 days after the rule is
promulgated. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) argued that
45 days is not enough time to read the rule and gather and
2-10
-------
compile the required information and that additional personnel
would be needed to assist in this enormous undertaking. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) realized that an Implementation
Plan is not required if an application for an operating permit
has been submitted, but the commenter thought it unlikely that
a source would have done so at this point. Therefore, the
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) requested that new sources be
allowed up to two years from promulgation to submit their
Implementation Plans, as required for existing sources under
proposed §63.151(c)(1)(ii).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters1 concerns,
and has revised the final rule to require new sources that
start up shortly before or within 90 days after promulgation
of the HON to submit the Initial Notification and
Implementation Plan within 90 days after promulgation. The
EPA agrees with the commenter that, because of the large
number of emission points at sources subject to the HON,
45 days is inadequate to complete group determinations and
prepare a detailed Implementation Plan. In order to minimize
the number of reports, the Initial Notification and
Implementation plan for new sources that start up before or
within 90 days of promulgation may be submitted together.
New sources that start up later than 90 days after
promulgation are required to submit an application for
approval of construction or reconstruction described in
§63.5(d) of the General Provisions. The contents of the
application for approval of construction or reconstruction may
be found in §§63.5(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2) of the General
Provisions. The EPA is overriding the provisions in
§63.5(d)(1)(i) that require the application for approval of
construction or reconstruction to be submitted within 45 days
after promulgation or 180 days prior to construction, and is
instead requiring that it be submitted within 90 days after
promulgation or 180 days prior to construction, whichever is
later. The Implementation Plan is required at the same time.
These sources are not required to submit an Initial
Notification, as this information would already be included in
2-11
-------
the application for approval of construction or
reconstruction.
In response to the commenter's request that new sources
be allowed up to two years to submit their Implementation
Plans, the Act requires new sources to comply at start-up or
promulgation, whichever is later. Existing sources are
required to be in compliance within three years of
promulgation. The HON cannot override the Act.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.39 and IV-F-12)
indicated that the Implementation Plan provisions allow an
operator to change the plan in order to avoid detection
anytime a violation seems imminent, and that this would be an
abuse of the system. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-117)
stated that enforcement of the HON will prove difficult if
sources can change their Implementation Plans without prior
approval.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) agreed with the
provisions allowing a source to update the Implementation Plan
in order to reflect changes in a source's compliance strategy
as new information becomes available. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-32) stated that these provisions are along the same lines
as the title V operating permit rule section 70.5(b) requiring
sources to promptly submit supplementary facts or corrected
information. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) requested
provisions clarifying the process for modifying the
Implementation Plan.
Response; Under §63.151(i) and §63.151(j), each owner or
operator who has submitted an Implementation Plan and who
changes their compliance strategy is required to submit
written updates if there is: (1) a change from a control
technique or monitoring parameter specified in the
Implementation Plan; (2) a new emission point included in an
emissions average; (3) a change in the Group status of an
emission point; (4) for a point in an emission average, a
change in the value of a parameter in the emission credit or
debit equation so it is outside the range specified in the
2-12
-------
plan and causes a decrease in the credit or an increase in the
debit; or (5) a new emission point is added.
In response to comments, the EPA reviewed the provisions
contained in the rule. For emission points in an emissions
average, the final rule has been revised to require the source
to submit written updates to the implementing agency for
approval 120 days before a change that is planned in advance.
This advance notice is required for the changes listed in
§63.151(i) (1) , (addition of a new emission point or change in
control technique) because these types of changes are planned
in advance. If the information concerning a change is not
known in advance, such as an unanticipated operational change
that affects the group status of a point or causes a parameter
value to change as specified in §63.I51(i)(2), the source must
submit the written updates to the implementing agency within
90 days after the information is known, or in the next
quarterly report if the compliance date has already passed.
The implementing agency has 120 days in which to approve the
written updates.
For emission points that are not in an emissions average,
written updates to the Implementation Plan must be submitted
within 180 days of when the change is made or the information
concerning a change is known. The written update may be
submitted in the next periodic report if the compliance date
has already passed. The implementing agency need not approve
the written updates for a source not emissions averaging.
This is consistent with the requirement that Implementation
Plans for emissions averaging must be approved, while
Implementation Plans for points not included in emissions
averaging do not require approval.
Updating a plan will not allow a source to "avoid
detection" or evade compliance. Starting on the compliance
date, all Group 1 points must be controlled to the levels
achieved by the RCT or, if emission points are included in an
emissions average, emission credits and debits (based on
actual operation) must balance. Updating an Implementation
Plan does not allow a source to violate these standards
2-13
-------
because the Implementation Plan does not provide a shield.
The control scenario documented in the Implementation Plan
must meet the requirements of the HON, or the source will be
considered in violation of the HON.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) supported
Implementation Plan updates to record significant changes such
as Group I/Group 2 status under proposed §63.151(h)(1).
However, the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) recommended
deleting proposed §§63.151(h)(2) and (4) and any other
unscheduled Implementation Plan updates for events other than
those in proposed §63.151(h)(1). The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-73) contended that these changes would be reported in the
periodic reports.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) also recommended
revising proposed §63.151(h)(4) to require an update of the
Implementation Plan only if a new Group 1 emission point is
added and not for instances such as when a process pump or
valve is installed.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) stated that
Implementation Plan updates should be included in the periodic
reports.
Response; It is necessary to update the Implementation
Plan if any of the circumstances listed in §63.151(h)(2)
through §63.151(h)(4) of the proposed rule occur. These
provisions are contained in §63.151(i) and (j) of the final
rule.
As specified in §63.151(i) and §63.151(j), updates are
required if there is: (1) a change from a control technique
or monitoring parameter specified in the Implementation Plan;
(2) a new emission point included in an emissions average;
(3) a change in the Group status of an emission point; (4) for
a point in an emission average, a change in the value of a
parameter in the emission credit or debit equation so it is
outside the range specified in the plan and causes a decrease
in the credit or an increase in the debit; or (5) a new
emission point is added. In order to plan for enforcement
before the compliance date, and to enforce the rule after the
2-14
-------
compliance date, the implementing agency needs to know which
emission points are subject to subpart G and exactly how
compliance will be achieved and monitored at each emission
point.
Because the Implementation Plan for emissions averaging
must be approved, a change in the parameters used to calculate
credits and debits that is outside the ranges specified in the
plan and that decreases credits or increases debits must also
be submitted for approval. This will give both the source and
the implementing agency confidence that the revised averaging
plan will result in compliance.
Both new Group 1 and Group 2 points must be reported,
along with the basis of the group determination, because it is
necessary to verify that Group 2 points are correctly
classified. New process pumps and valves would not be
reported because these equipment are subject to subpart H, not
subpart G. The Implementation Plan provisions are in
subpart G and apply only to emission points subject to
subpart G.
The dates for submittal of Implementation Plan updates
are contained in the previous response. In some cases, these
updates can be submitted as part of the periodic reports
instead of separate submittals. Once an operating permit is
issued, the Implementation Plan is no longer enforceable and
written updates to the plan are not required. However, the
source will be required to follow the procedures specified in
the permit program rule if updates and changes are made to the
operating permit.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.3 and IV-F-5;
IV-F-1.4) urged the EPA to allow existing sources, who plan to
emissions average and who have not been in operation for 18
months prior to the compliance date, to be allowed to
calculate the plant site's emissions for the time it has been
in operation if this period is less than 18 months.
Response: Because existing sources are defined as
sources that commenced construction before proposal (December
1992) , the vast majority of existing sources are already in
2-15
-------
operation or will be in operation more than 18 months before
the compliance date. Owners or operators of existing sources
who plan to comply through emissions averaging and have not
submitted an operating permit application must submit an
Implementation Plan no later than 18 months prior to the
compliance date.
The Implementation Plan will include emissions
calculations to project credits and debits. The calculations
do not require 18 months of data. In fact, no test data are
required. Sections 63.151(d)(2) and (d)(6) through (d)(8) of
subpart G make it clear that for the purpose of the
Implementation Plan, the parameter values in the emission
credit and debit equations may be estimated.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
the Implementation Plan is an important informational and
planning document, not an enforceable commitment. Another
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) was unclear as to whether
milestones discussed in the Implementation Plan are
enforceable, or whether compliance by the effective date is
the sole enforceable element.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33; IV-D-73)
stated that the provisions to require written compliance
certifications as part of the Implementation Plan should be
deleted. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested deleting
all requirements for submittal of written statements in
§63.151(d) for emission points in an emissions average. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) maintained that the
certifications serve no purpose since these emission points
will already be identified in the Implementation Plan, will be
included in quarterly reports, and compliance is certified
annually under the operating permit program rule. One
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) argued that compliance
certifications are properly found under the part 70 operating
permit program, and therefore should not be required in the
Implementation Plan. The other commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33)
contended that certification should only be required when a
source is required to submit a compliance plan with its permit
2-16
-------
application in conformance with an approved operating permit
program.
Response; While the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) is
correct in stating that the Implementation Plan is an
important informational and planning tool for both the source
and the permitting authority, it is enforceable after the
compliance date, if an operating permit application has not
been submitted for approval. Because an Implementation Plan
is only required if an operating permit application has not
already been submitted for approval, this does not duplicate
or conflict with the operating permit program requirements.
However, once the operating permit has been approved, the
Implementation Plan will no longer be enforceable.
The EPA has revised the final rule in §63.151(e)(3) to
require a statement that the compliance demonstration,
monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting
provisions will be implemented beginning on the date of
compliance. All references to "certifications" were removed
from this section. The required statement is not the same as
the annual compliance certifications which are required under
section 114(a)(3) of the Act and section 70.6(c) of the
operating permit program rule.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) recommended
that information required to be submitted in the
Implementation Plan under proposed §63.151(e)(4) such as the
requirements under proposed §63.120(d)(1) be submitted as part
of the Notification of Compliance Status, instead of with the
Implementation Plan as currently required, because the
information will likely not be available until after start-up
of the control devices.
Response; The EPA reviewed the commenter's request to
include the design analysis requirements in §63.120(d)(l) for
storage vessel closed-vent systems in the Notification of
Compliance Status, instead of with the Implementation Plan as
was proposed. However, the EPA decided to keep the
information in the Implementation Plan. Because there is no
performance test required, and monitoring requirements are
2-17
-------
site-specific, the implementing agency will need to review the
design analysis and suggested monitoring parameters ahead of
time. This will allow the source and implementing agency to
establish and agree on the site-specific monitoring
requirements prior to the compliance date. The requested
information can be developed from a design analysis prior to
equipment installation and a test would not be required. For
these reasons, the EPA will continue to require this design
analysis with the Implementation Plan. In addition, the
wording in §63.120(d) was clarified to make it clear that the
analysis is not a test demonstration, but will show that the
control is designed to achieve 95-percent emissions
reductions.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) argued that
it would be redundant to require a source to provide detailed
information about unique monitoring parameters in the
Implementation Plan when this information is already required
in the Notification of Compliance Status. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-33) suggested the Implementation Plan identify
the parameters to be monitored, but not include the detailed
information in proposed §63.151(f)(1) through (3). The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) also suggested the same change
be made to proposed §63.152(e) so that the detailed
information would be required in the Notification of
Compliance Status rather than the operating permit application
or the Implementation Plan.
Response: The information in §63.I51(f)(1) through (3)
of subpart G is necessary for the regulatory authority to make
an informed decision when reviewing a request for a unique
site-specific monitoring parameter. Because the use of unique
parameters must be approved prior to the use of the unique
parameters, the information must be submitted before the
compliance date with the Implementation Plan rather than with
the Notification of Compliance Status, which is not due until
150 days after the compliance date. By submitting the
information with the Implementation Plan, which is due
12 months before compliance for emission points not included
2-18
-------
in emissions averages and 18 months before compliance for
points in emissions averages, the source and the implementing
agency can agree on the monitoring parameters and associated
recordkeeping and reporting system before the compliance date.
The submittal of the information in §63.151(f) is
required only if a source wishes to monitor a unique operating
parameter, that is, a parameter not listed in the process
vents, transfer, storage or wastewater provisions. In order
to make a decision regarding approval, the implementing agency
must be given the information in §63.151(f)(1), including the
description of the parameters to be monitored and an
explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter.
Also, the information in §6.3.151(f) (2) , a description of the
methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that
the parameter indicates proper operation of the control device
and the schedule for this demonstration must be provided, and
the owner or operator must certify they will establish a range
for the monitored parameters as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status. In order to determine if the proposed
monitoring recordkeeping and reporting system is sufficient to
determine compliance, the implementing agency also needs the
information in §63.151(f)(3), which includes the frequency and
content of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting if it will
differ from the requirements in §63.152.
It should be noted that the actual numerical range of the
parameters is submitted later in the Notification of
Compliance Status. This is because testing may be needed to
establish the exact range, and it would be impractical to
require testing before the compliance date because control
devices may not be installed and operational until the
compliance date.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) requested
that the calibration and maintenance procedures and records of
the recording devices be included in the Implementation Plan.
Response: The Implementation Plan must include a
statement that the owner or operator will follow the
compliance demonstration, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
2-19
-------
reporting provisions in §§63.113 through 63.148 that are
applicable to each emission point. These sections
(e.g., §63.114 for process vents) state that monitoring
equipment must be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. The
Notification of Compliance Status required in §63.152(b) of
subpart G includes the results of any continuous monitoring
system performance evaluations that have been performed.
The EPA believes the provisions provide assurance that
monitors will be properly calibrated and maintained without
causing the reporting burden of submitting detailed
information on calibration plans and procedures for the
numerous emission points and control devices that will be
subject to the HON at each facility. The specific monitor
calibration and maintenance descriptions suggested by the
commenter need not be submitted prior to the compliance date
to allow implementing agencies to plan their programs. Such
information would significantly increase the recordkeeping and
reporting burden for both the industry and the implementing
agency. Therefore, the rule has not been changed.
2.1.3 Notification of Compliance Status
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) supported the
deadline of 150 days after the compliance date for submitting
the Notification of Compliance Status, stating that it should
provide sufficient time for a source to complete the
performance tests, set parameter ranges, and complete status
determination.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) supported the EPA's
effort to avoid duplicative reporting in the Notification of
Compliance Status by requiring only one complete test report
for each test method used for a particular kind of emission
point.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-69; IV-D-81)
supported the provisions in §63.152(b)(2)(iii) requiring a
source to define an operating day for purposes of determining
daily average values for monitored parameters as part of the
Notification of Compliance Status. Two of the commenters
2-20
-------
(A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81) stated that source's operating
periods vary greatly and that allowing each source to define
its own operating day enables it to fashion an operating
period that most closely corresponds with the sources' actual
operating procedures. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-79)
stated that the 24-hour operating day appropriately measures
compliance.
Response; The provisions supported by these commenters
have been retained in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) requested
that S63.152(b) be clarified to specify that the Notification
of Compliance Status be submitted "within 150 days after" the
compliance date, instead of "within 150 days of" which does
not specify whether the report is due after or before the
compliance date.
Response; The word "after" was added in §63.152(b) for
clarification.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-66) questioned
whether proposed 63.152(b), which requires the submittal of a
Notification of Compliance Status with 150 days after the
compliance date, overrides 63.9(h)(2)(ii) of the proposed
General Provisions which requires the same notification be
submitted with 45 days after the compliance date.
Response: The commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-66) is correct.
The Notification of Compliance Status requirements in
section 63.152(b) override of the HON override the
Notification of Compliance status requirements contained in
the General Provisions. A table (table 3) has been added to
the final rule in subpart F. This table lists the General
Provisions sections and whether they do or do not apply to the
HON.
2.1.4 Periodic Reports
Comment: Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-48;
IV-D-69; IV-D-75; IV-D-77; IV-D-79; IV-D-89; IV-D-112) favored
eliminating the requirements for submitting negative reports
(i.e., periodic reports covering periods where no excursions
have occurred) in order to reduce the burden to the regulated
2-21
-------
community and to the regulatory agencies. Instead, one
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-69) suggested that the facility
submit a statement that there were no excursions during the
reporting period.
Response; The rule requires periodic reports on a
semiannual or quarterly schedule. The reports must include
the required information on all the emission points that have
excursions or other reportable information (such as results of
any TRE determinations and performance tests, results of seal
gap measurements for storage vessels, descriptions of routine
maintenance for storage vessels, credits and debits for points
in emissions averages, and other items). However, if no
excursions or other reportable events occurred, then a
statement that there were no reportable events will be
adequate. The statement could simply state that there were no
reportable events at any emission points or no reportable
events at any emission points other than those for which data
are reported. The report would not need to include a point-
by-point list of all the emission points that had no
reportable events.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33)
recommended that the rule be revised to allow the first
periodic report to cover the six months after the Notification
of Compliance Status is filed. The commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-33) stated that timing the first periodic report
from the Notification of Compliance Status and not the
compliance date, as the proposed rule reads, would be more
beneficial to sources who will be completing their performance
tests and performing equipment adjustments during the 150-day
period between the compliance date and the Notification of
Compliance Status report.
Response: The EPA has revised the final rule in
agreement with the commenter's suggestion. Under the final
rule, the first Periodic Report covers the six-month period
after the Notification of Compliance Status is due, and must
be submitted eight months after the Notification of Compliance
Status is due. The control devices must be installed and the
2-22
-------
monitoring equipment operating by the compliance date, site-
specific operating parameter ranges must be established and
included in the Notification of Compliance Status. The reason
parameter ranges are established after the compliance date is
that, in most cases, they will be based on performance test
data which will not be available until after the compliance
date. Excursion recordkeeping and reporting begins on the
date the Notification of Compliance Status is due. Prior to
this time, the range would not have been established, so there
would be no indication that an excursion had occurred.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) supported the
1 and 5 percent threshold for triggering quarterly reporting
and the option of reverting back to semiannual reporting after
1 year of not exceeding the set limits.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) maintained that
based on their experience with CEM's, the 95 percent
monitoring system time provision is feasible but would be very
expensive and could require redundant monitoring systems. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) suggested that 80 to 90 percent
would be a more realistic period when using CEM's. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) also contended that the
selection of a 1-percent deviation as a trigger for possible
quarterly monitoring is too restrictive and does not reflect
the industry practices of process control. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that a process parameter is
generally considered in control if the measured value is
within 2 standard deviations (5 percent) of the target or
expected values and therefore 5 percent should be used as the
trigger for more frequent reporting instead of 1 percent.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested
expressing the 1 percent and 5 percent requirements as hours
instead of a percentage to prevent triggering quarterly
reports for sources with short operating hours. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-73) requested a 1 percent outage of 44 hours
and 5 percent of 219 hours for semiannual periods.
Response: The EPA has revised the final rule. Under the
final rule, quarterly reports are required if: (1) the
2-23
-------
emission point has more than the allowed number of excused
excursions for a semiannual reporting period; and (2) the
implementing agency requests the owner or operator to submit
reports on a quarterly basis. The provisions requiring
quarterly reporting if the monitored parameter values for the
emission point are outside the permitted range for more than
1 percent of the point's operating time, or the continuous
monitoring system is inoperable for more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a semiannual reporting period were not
included in the final rule. The excused excursion system is
discussed in section 3.2.5 of this BID volume.
In response to commenter IV-D-77, the HON does not
require CEM's. Instead, continuous parameter monitoring can
be used. Further discussion of parameter monitoring and CEM's
can be found in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 of this BID volume.
2.1.5 Other Reports
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-64)
suggested allowing the information required under proposed
§§63.118(g), (h), (i), and (j) when a process change affects
the TRE or flow rate or HAP concentration of a Group 2 process
vent to be submitted in the source's semiannual report instead
of a special report as proposed.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested clarifying in
§63.118(g) that the reports of changes are required regardless
of whether or not such changes constitute a modification under
section 112(g) of the Act.
Response: The final rule has been revised to allow a
Group 2 emission point, such as a process vent, that becomes a
Group 1 emission point to report the Group status change in
the next periodic report. Section 63.118 of the HON clearly
states that all process changes meeting the criteria in
§63.115(e) of subpart G need to be reported. After the HON
has been promulgated, the modification rules developed under
section 112(g) do not apply to sources subject to the HON.
Instead, the HON specifies the compliance provisions
notifications and reports that apply to modified sources.
2-24
-------
Section 63. 100 (K) (4) of subpart F was revised to state
that a Group 2 emission point that becomes a Group 1 emission
point must come into compliance as expeditiously as practical,
but not later than three years. The source must work out the
compliance details with their implementing agency, and obtain
approval of their compliance schedule.
one commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) recommended
that all "one-time" reports, notifications, and requests for
approval of alternate methods either be incorporated into the
periodic report or eliminated.
Response; The commenter 's suggestion is not feasible
when the report is a request for approval for a nominal
control efficiency for use in calculating credits for an
emissions average or some other item that must be acted on
immediately. (Other reports are described in §63. 152 (d) of
the final rule.)
Also, some information, such as requests for alternative
monitoring parameters, must be approved before the periodic
reporting system begins.
Comment : One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) indicated
that the list of other reports included in proposed
§63. 152 (d) (3) should be simplified to cross-reference reports
required by §§63. 122 (h) and (i) ; the commenter included
suggested wording.
Response: The list of other reports for storage vessels
contained in proposed §63 . 152 (d) (3) was revised for the final
rule. In the final rule, storage vessel other reports are
discussed in §63. 152 (d) (2) and only notifications of
inspections required by §63. 122 (h) (1) must be submitted.
Reports previously included under proposed §63. 122 (i)
pertaining to requests for extensions of repair were removed
from the final rule. The rationale for these changes is
contained in section 3.5 of BID volume 2A.
2.2 FREQUENCY OF REPORTING
Comment : Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-64;
IV-D-112) supported the two-tiered reporting frequency,
semiannually for most periodic reports, and quarterly for
2-25
-------
emission points using emissions averaging or when monitoring
results show parameter values are outside the established
ranges. Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-112) stated
that the two-tiered reporting frequency provides incentive for
good monitoring performance.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) suggested that
information about Group 2 emission points be submitted
annually.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-63) maintained that
annual reporting would be adequate to monitor compliance and
that most implementing agencies are not adequately staffed to
review quarterly or semiannual reports.
Response; As suggested by the commenters, the periodic
reporting system of semiannual or quarterly reporting for
Group 1 emission points provides an incentive for sources with
good performance to continue operating in that manner. These
requirements are in conformance with section 70.5(c) of the
operating permits program, which states that sources are
required to submit reports no less frequently than once every
six months.
Annual reporting was not selected as requested by the
commenters, because it would significantly reduce the EPA's
ability to take administrative enforcement actions.
Section 113(d) of the Act limits assessment of administrative
penalties to violations that occur no more than 12 months
prior to the initiation of the administrative proceeding.
Periodic reports are a primary means of identifying possible
violations, and annual submittal would not give the
enforcement agency time to review the report and take action
on a violation that occurred early in the reporting period
within one year after the event. Administrative proceedings
are far less costly than judicial proceedings for both the EPA
and the regulated community.
In general, information on Group 2 emission points is not
required in the periodic reports unless they become Group 1.
Group 2 process vents with TRE index values between 1 and 4
are required to monitor parameter values and report any daily
2-26
-------
average values that are outside the established ranges in the
periodic reports. This assures that they are operating in
such a way that they will not become a Group l emission point.
When operating permit program fees become available, the
permitting authority is expected to increase their staff as
necessary to keep up with the large number of operating permit
applications and subsequent reports. This will allow the
permitting authority to review the periodic reports on a
semiannual basis.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-1) believed the
HON reporting requirements were less stringent than the
General Provisions' requirements and requested that the HON
rule require at least quarterly reports.
Response; Section 63.lO(d)(l) of the General Provisions
states that sources should submit reports in accordance with
the reporting requirements in the relevant standard. As
discussed in a previous comment, the HON requires semiannual
or quarterly reporting and these requirements are consistent
with the operating permits program. These reporting
frequencies are adequate to ensure continuous compliance.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85 and IV-K-l)
stated that plant operators should be required to promptly
report all deviations from permit requirements including any
excursion beyond a permitted parameter range or malfunction of
a monitor, as required by sections 503(b)(2) and 504(a) of the
Act. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) suggested that if
a parameter value is outside of the operating range or a
monitoring system is out of service it should be reported
immediately and the report should contain the reasons why the
emission point is outside the operating range, and the
potential adverse effects to human health and the environment.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) requested that the State or
local districts have final approval in determining whether the
process should be allowed to operate under out-of-
specification conditions at any time.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-115) stated that the
proposed rule allows an emission point to be outside an
2-27
-------
approved operating range without requiring the source to
submit an immediate report. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-115) recommended including in the rule those
circumstances that require immediate notification of the
implementing agency and requested that these reports include
sufficient information to determine whether a malfunction
poses a serious threat to the public. Another commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-77) maintained that requiring immediate
reports of exceedances would be burdensome, does not improve
control effectiveness, and should not be required.
Response; Based on information available about emissions
from SOCMI facilities, operation of a control in an excursion
state is expected to result in some increased emissions, but
not an increase that is likely to have a direct and immediate
impact on public health. Therefore, immediate reporting of
every instance when a monitoring device is not functioning or
an operating parameter is outside of the permitted range would
be burdensome and is not necessary to determine compliance.
Monitors may be temporarily out of service for a variety of
reasons, but the process and control equipment may still be
functioning normally.
For the HON, the EPA considers periodic reporting of
parameter excursions and days when sufficient monitoring data
were not collected to be consistent with sections 503(b)(2)
and 504(a) of the Act. In this case, compliance with permit
conditions means operating with the excused number of
parameter excursions or fewer. Section 504(a) requires
submission of results of required parameter monitoring no less
often than every six months.
If a parameter excursion or monitoring system downtime is
caused by a "malfunction," the reporting requirements
contained in the General Provisions apply. As described in
the General Provisions, a malfunction is defined as "any
sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that
are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation
2-28
-------
are not malfunctions." The General Provisions require that
actions taken during the malfunction be consistent with
procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, and that the malfunction be reported in the
next periodic report. However, if an action taken is not
completely consistent with the plan, §63.6(e)(3)(iv) and
§63.10(d)(5)(ii) of the General Provisions require the source
to report (by telephone or facsimile) within 2 working days
after the event commences, followed by a letter within
10 working days. This report would explain the circumstances
of the event, the reasons for not following the start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, and whether any excess
emissions and/or parameter monitoring excursions are believed
to have occurred.
A few commenters expressed concern about possible adverse
effects to human health and the environment from exceedances
and malfunctions. In the event that an operating parameter is
outside the permitted range, and an accidental release occurs,
the source will be subject to the proposed accidental release
prevention rule. This rule identifies those substances that
are most likely to cause serious adverse effects that could
harm the public and the environment. The proposed accidental
release prevention rule, along with subsequent accident
prevention regulations that will be proposed later, include
the requirement that facilities develop and implement a risk
management plan covering off-site consequence analysis,
including worst-case scenarios, a five-year accident history,
a prevention program, and an emergency response program.
2.3 RECORDKEEPING FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS AND
RECORD RETENTION
2.3.1 Data Collection and Recording Frequency
Comment: Several commenters offered examples and
specific details of their experience with computer data
retention systems and questioned whether some of these systems
would be considered acceptable for compliance with the HON.
The systems that one commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) described
could be varied by data acquisition rate (10 seconds.,
2-29
-------
30 seconds, or 6 minutes) and by data retention times (between
1 day and 90 days; data can be kept for longer periods of time
by using backups or averaging; however, these retention times
are the most often used). The more frequently acquired data
are kept for a shorter period of time, while less frequently
acquired data are kept for a longer period of time. Another
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) stated that many processes
monitor data many times per minute, average data for a period
of time such as 15 minutes, and retain the data for a period
of time such as 2 hours, after which the data is overwritten.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) noted that daily averages
are usually maintained. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-79)
stated that, for compliance with the Burning of Hazardous
Waste in Industrial Furnaces and Boilers (BIF) regulations
(40 CFR 266), they have the option to use hourly rolling
average control for process data acquisition. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-79) stated that a reading is taken every
6 seconds, and 10 of the readings are averaged to determine a
1-minute average, which is printed. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-79) went on to say that the most recent 60 1-minute
readings are averaged to make up the hourly rolling average,
which is printed. Commenters stated that many of their
systems calculate and retain hourly averages (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-33; IV-D-69); 3-hour averages (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-69); and/or 24-hour averages (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-69).
Response; The EPA appreciated the specific information
provided by the commenters on the capabilities of their
computer data retention systems.
As described in a later response, the final HON allows
owners or operators to discard the 15-minute values and
instead retain hourly average values for operating days when
the daily average value is not an excursion. For days when
the daily average is an excursion, the 15-minute records must
be retained. These provisions should allow some of the
commenters to continue to use their current computer systems
2-30
-------
that retain hourly averages, as long as the systems are
capable of retaining 15-minute averages for excursion periods.
^gflpent; TWO conunenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-64)
asked whether retention of 6-minute averages would comply with
the HON. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) explained that
most of their process control instruments measure data values
two or three times per second. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-64) continued that one-minute averages are averaged to
obtain a six-minute average, which is retained. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-64) requested that they be allowed to retain
the six-minute average, and not retain the twice-per-second
measurements. For this reason, the commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-64) requested that the phrase "all measured values" be
deleted from the definition of continuous record and
continuous recorder. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32)
noted that the required 15-minute averages will be very
difficult for systems that work on 6-minute multiples to
accommodate.
Response; The definition of "continuous record" in
§63.111 was revised for the final rule and now requires that
data values be measured at least once every 15 minutes and
recorded at the frequency specified in §63.152(f) of the HON.
Under §63.152(f), sources required to keep continuous records
must record either each measured data value or block average
values for 15-minute (or shorter) periods calculated from all
measured data values during each period. This does not
prohibit a source from measuring and recording values more
often than once every 15 minutes or from keeping 6- or
12-minute averages instead of 15-minute averages. For days
when an excursion does not occur, the 15-minute (or more
frequent) records may be discarded and hourly average records
retained instead.
Comment; Some commenters requested retention of hourly
or daily averages instead of 15-minute averages.
One of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-33) stated that the
current HON recordkeeping requirements would require more
effort and substantially more disk storage than hourly
2-31
-------
averages. Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-33; IV-D-70)
suggested that the operating parameters be measured at least
once every 15 minutes, but that records be maintained only for
hourly averages or less frequent time periods. Two commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-69) recommended the use of systems
that take continuous measurements and calculate average
parameter values for time periods longer than 15 minutes. The
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-69) maintained that this
change would allow companies to continue using their current
systems and would be adequate to verify compliance.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) recommended that only
daily averages be required for days during which no excursions
from the range occur. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74)
recommended maintaining only the records of daily averages,
and another (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested sources be given the
choice of retaining daily averages instead of detailed
monitoring records. One of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74)
also suggested that the EPA reduce the recordkeeping for
sources that consistently demonstrate good compliance, similar
to the concept in subpart H of less frequent monitoring as
leak frequencies are decreased.
Response; The EPA agrees that hourly average values are
generally sufficient to determine compliance and has
determined that 15-minute records should be kept only if there
is an excursion. As at proposal, compliance with the
operating conditions is based on the daily average value of
continuously monitored parameters. If the daily average value
is outside the established range, this is an "excursion." The
proposed HON required retention of 15-minute average data
values to substantiate the daily average calculations and
provide a record of trends in control device operation over a
shorter time period. Records of hourly average values are
sufficient to accomplish these purposes, and will greatly
reduce the recordkeeping burden of the HON. This change will
reduce by a factor of four the number of records that must be
digitally converted by computer systems, copied onto tapes
and/or printed as hard copy, duplicated, and stored. It will
2-32
-------
avoid the cost of reprogramming existing computerized
recordkeeping systems that commenters said are currently
programmed to retain hourly averages. The reduction in the
number of records will also simplify review of these records
by enforcement agencies.
The reduction in the number of records will not impair
the ability to detect parameter excursions. The final rule
requires continuous monitors to measure parameter values at
least once every 15 minutes. Many monitors are designed to
measure more frequently. The final rule differs from the
proposal only in that hourly rather than 15-minute average
values may be retained on record for operating days when there
is not an excursion. Furthermore, the final rule requires
retention of the 15-minute values of parameters for operating
days when there is an excursion. This will provide a more
detailed record of those periods when there are problems. It
will not significantly increase the recordkeeping burden
because there should only be a few days per year when there
are parameter excursions for any given emission point.
The equipment leak provisions referred to by one
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) are based on periodic monitoring
(leak detection) rather than continuous monitoring. Thus, the
equipment leak provisions are not relevant to emission points
required to be continuously monitored under subpart G.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) requested
that §63.103(b)(4) allow reduction of data by methods
specified in the HON or approved in the Implementation Plan or
operating permit application. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-73) supported data reduction, but maintained that the
proposed methods are too restrictive. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-73) contended that the 5-minute and 15-minute average for
data retention [i.e., the transfer operation provisions in
proposed §61.130(a)(i) and (ii)] would be an "unnatural" time
span for many process control computers. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-73) stated that they have analyzed the effort
that would be required for one plant to change from 6-minute
averages or spot readings. Such an effort would require
2-33
-------
21 person-weeks of work if only 500 data tags are involved and
could impact basic computer capacity and operational control
if additional tags are involved. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-73) stated that no estimation to convert to 15-minute
averages was made because this time span would be incompatible
with the current data collection or computation programs and
conversion would be so costly and disruptive that it would not
be a realistic option. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73)
contended that long-term retention of hourly average data
should be adequate to demonstrate compliance and that shorter
averages would be arbitrary, burdensome, and of no
environmental benefit.
Response; The transfer operation provisions have been
revised for the final rule and no longer require retention of
5-minute records. Hourly records (and 15-minute records for
excursions) are required for transfer operations as well as
the other kinds of emission points. See section 4.2.2 of BID
volume 2A for more information on monitoring and recording
frequencies for transfer operations. Furthermore, the rule
provides flexibility to keep averages for periods shorter than
15 minutes (e.g., 6-minute averages) for days when there are
excursions.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) recommended
that records for each 15-minute average be maintained for each
day of operation until the end of the operating day, at which
time the 15-minute average readings for the full period of any
excursions will be maintained and all other data discarded.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) maintained that such a
system would ensure compliance and proper operation and
maintenance of control devices, while making data retention
more manageable.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that
15-minute average readings need to be maintained only for
those days when an excursion occurs. However, the final rule
requires that hourly average values be retained for days when
there are no excursions, if the 15-minute values are
discarded. The EPA determined that the commenters suggestions
2-34
-------
to maintain no records other than excursion records would not
be adequate for enforcement purposes. The hourly records are
needed to document that the required monitoring was conducted
and to allow verification of the daily average values for days
when the source has not reported an excursion.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) requested
that preamble language, which seeks at least one monitored
value for every 15 minutes, be clarified because §63.111 of
the proposed rule allows retention of 15-minute averages which
may not ever be one of the monitored values. Another
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-79) requested that records of
15-minute averages be allowed instead of recording every
1-minute measurement. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73)
requested that the HON rule be clarified to state whether for
a parameter that is monitored very frequently (say once per
second), all data, 15-minute averages, hourly averages, or
daily averages should be retained.
Response; The definition of "continuous record" in
§63.111 was revised for the final rule to mean documentation,
either in hard copy or computer-readable form, of data values
measured at least once every 15 minutes and recorded at the
frequency specified in §63.152(f) of subpart G. The source
required to keep continuous records under §63.152(f) must
record either each measured data value or block average values
for 15-minute or shorter periods calculated from all measured
data values during each period. This definition allows
sources some flexibility to select the option that is easiest
for them. Furthermore, for days when there are no excursions,
the source is given the flexibility to discard the 15-minute
(or more frequent) records and retain only the hourly average
values.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) supported the
proposed definitions of "continuous record" and "continuous
recorder" in those circumstances where continuous recording is
appropriate, such as when a device exists that can
automatically record the data (i.e., temperature monitor).
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) also supported the
2-35
-------
definition of continuous meaning every 15 minutes (as opposed
to more frequent recording) and stated that this appears
consistent with the draft enhanced monitoring provisions and
the existing NSPS program. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74)
suggested that a source also be allowed to monitor less
frequently than every 15 minutes, since operational problems
occur over a period of several hours. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-74) suggested that the EPA consider in future MACT
standards whether continuous records are appropriate and
stated that they are generally not appropriate for batch
processes.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-64; IV-D-68; IV-D-73)
suggested changing the definition of "continuous record" to
require a record of data values recorded at least once each
hour, instead of every 15 minutes. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-68) said that recording values every 15 minutes would
require installation of computer systems at plants that do not
currently have computers and would be very costly. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-68) stated that monitoring every
15 minutes would result in 96 values per day, whereas
statistical methods for calculating an average require no more
than 20 to 30 readings for a representative grouping.
Response; Continuous parameter monitoring is feasible
for the HON and is consistent with enhanced monitoring.
"Continuous" is defined in previous NSPS and NESHAP and the
General Provisions as at least one monitored value every
15 minutes. This frequency is appropriate for accurate
portrayal of control device operation.
The final rule is the same as the proposal in that a
record of a monitored value must be made at least every
15 minutes. However, for reasons explained in previous
responses in this section, if there are no excursions during
an operating day, the owner or operator may discard the
15-minute records and retain hourly average values instead.
Most SOCMI plant sites use computer monitoring systems.
However, provisions were added in the final rule for non-
automated sources to request approval on a case-by-case basis
2-36
-------
to monitor at least once an hour instead of once every
15 minutes. The monitoring provisions for non-automated
systems are discussed in more detail in section 2.3.3.
2.3.2 Data Compression Systems
Comment; Many commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33;
IV-D-36; IV-D-48; IV-D-67; IV-D-69; IV-D-73; IV-D-74; IV-D-75;
IV-D-77; IV-D-79; IV-D-97; IV-D-110; IV-D-112) suggested
allowing the use of data compression technologies to reduce
the volume of data that must be retained while still allowing
determination of when exceedances have occurred. Data
compression technologies are computerized data acquisition
systems that do not record data at a given frequency, but
record all data points that vary significantly from the
previously recorded data points or go outside a pre-set range.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-3) mentioned that computer
systems can be designed to identify and record data that are
out of range. Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32, IV-D-97)
stated that data compression systems have been successfully
used in the chemical industry for over 10 years and are
reliable for compliance verification; adding that one company
uses computerized process control and data compression for
monitoring at 50 facilities and hundreds of process units.
The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32, IV-D-97) stated that
calibration is conducted at the same frequency as with other
monitoring systems and that data are displayed in the control
room and periodically verified by checks between the field and
control room. The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32, IV-D-97)
said data listings and displays can be readily generated for
compliance inspectors and software programs can be written to
audit data storage.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33; IV-D-97)
listed the advantages of compression data acquisition systems
to be: the ease of data retrieval from archived data; a
reduced amount of information retained on-site resulting in
reduced costs for data handling and storage, and reduced
burden for inspectors who review the information; reduced data
storage requirements for the computer system resulting in
2-37
-------
reduced computer costs; computer systems designed to generate
records automatically, reducing the likelihood of
recordkeeping and reporting errors; and the ability to detect
operating problems quickly, access past data, and predict
future problems.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-97) attached
published articles on computer data compression techniques.
The articles described various algorithms that can be used to
determine which data values are recorded and other features of
the systems including graphical display of information and
data storage capabilities.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) attached copies of
published manuals describing computer systems that can store,
summarize, and report historical process information such as
monitoring data. The manuals describe data compression
techniques used by these systems as well as statistical and
graphical capabilities and file size and file management
considerations.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) stated that through the
use of data compression, two years of data can be maintained
before being archived. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67)
typically backs up the computer hard-drives to disk or tape
every week or two. The disks or tapes have a shelf life of
over 10 years. Every year or two, the data is archived to
tapes, which also have shelf lives of 10 years and can be up-
loaded if needed. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) stated
that paper copies, strip charts, and operator logsheets are
subject to degradation, fading, and smearing.
Some of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-67;
IV-D-97) referred to data compression as a valuable tool and
stated that their plant site typically uses a 1-percent
variance to determine which data points are recorded, although
any value can be selected. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67)
stated that, if the variance is set appropriately, data is
typically stored more often than every 15 minutes, even when
using data compression. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67)
acknowledged that the computer system could be programmed to
2-38
-------
just record data once every 15 minutes; however, the commenter
contended that valuable data trends would be lost.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) stated that their data
compression system looks for unchanging data (no variability)
and uses internal alarms to bring this to the attention of
control room operators, since unchanging data can mean
something is wrong with the monitoring system.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) contended that the
validity and accuracy of the data are a function of the
instrument measuring the value for the data point and not the
computer system. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-97)
contended that no data are "lost" with data compression
systems because the absence of a value simply means that the
data does not vary outside the permitted parameters or
significantly from the last recorded value.
Response; In response to the many commenters requesting
that the HON accommodate data compression as an alternative
monitoring method, the EPA reviewed published articles,
manuals, and other information submitted by the commenters
describing how these data compression systems operate. With
data compression systems, the monitor usually measures the
parameter much more frequently than once every 15 minutes;
however, the computer records a value only when a data value
varies from previously recorded values by more than a set
variance. The final rule has been revised to allow a source
to request approval to monitor using data compression as an
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting system.
The source must apply to the permitting authority for the
approval of this alternative.
The EPA has established minimum criteria that data
compression systems must satisfy in order to ensure recorded
data are sufficient to represent the process and determine
whether an excursion has occurred.
In order to be approved under §63.151(g)(4) of the rule,
an acceptable data compression system must be capable of:
(1) measuring the operating parameter value more frequently
than at least once every 15 minutes; (2) recording at least
2-39
-------
four values each hour during periods of operation;
(3) recording the date and time when monitors are turned off
or on; (4) recognizing unchanging data that may indicate the
monitor is not functioning properly, alerting the operator,
and recording the incident; and (5) computing daily average
values of the monitored operating parameter based on recorded
data. At the end of the day, if the daily average value is
not an excursion, the data may be converted to hourly averages
and the four individual records per hour may be discarded.
The request for approval must contain a description of the
monitoring system and data compression recording system,
including the criteria used to determine which monitored
values are recorded and retained, the method for calculating
daily averages, and a demonstration that the system meets the
five criteria previously discussed.
The EPA expects that by allowing sources to request to
use data compression systems as an alternative monitoring and
recording system, the burden of the HON will be reduced. If
sources' data compression requests are approved, then sources
that have already installed data compression systems or plan
to install such systems can utilize the data compression
systems instead of incurring the burden of purchasing an
additional system or redesigning their current system.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-97) suggested the
language of §63.103(a)(5) of the proposed rule be rewritten to
specifically allow data compression techniques. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-67) recommended changing the definition of
"continuous record" to allow data compression techniques with
a l percent or less variance range.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) suggested that the EPA
allow facilities to choose from a variety of monitoring
options by eliminating the "continuous record" definition and
creating new definitions for "complete records" and "complete
hourly records" that allow data compression system records.
Response; Data compression will be allowed in the final
rule as an alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting system that must be approved on a case-by-case
2-40
-------
basis. Specific provisions have been added in §63.151(g)(4)
of subpart G. See the response to the previous comment for
details.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) noted that
the proposal preamble discusses allowing the use of monitoring
systems that only store data outside of a predetermined range
of values. The commenter contended that preamble language in
proposed section VII.G.6 contradicts this concept by stating
that all data in between the stored values is the same as the
last recorded value. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) stated
that the opposite was true and the language should be
corrected to read "It is then deemed that all data in between
the stored values does not exceed the specified range."
Response; There are various types of data compression
systems. The commenter is correct that some data compression
systems record only data that is outside a predetermined range
of values. The commenter is also correct that for properly
calibrated systems that record only data that is outside a
predetermined range of values, all data in between the stored
values does not exceed the specified range. Other data
compression systems record data that varies from the
previously recorded data points by more than a set variance.
The proposed preamble language, which states that all data in
between the stored values is the same as the last recorded
value, is accurate for the system that records data that
varies from the previously recorded data points.
Data compression systems that record only data that is
outside a predetermined range of values would not provide a
true record of the process variations, but would only record
the extreme values that might be likely to result in an
excursion. Also, it is likely that too few data points would
be recorded, so that daily averages may not be representative.
Therefore, these types of data compression systems are not
allowed by the HON.
However, after review of data compression systems that
record based on variability, the EPA determined that these
data compression systems could meet the purposes of the HON.
2-41
-------
As described in a previous response in this section, owners or
operators can request approval to use such systems if they
meet specified minimum criteria.
Comment: Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36
and IV-D-121; IV-D-77; IV-K-24), (A-90-20: IV-D-19),
(A-90-21: IV-D-17), (A-90-22: IV-D-13), (A-90-23: IV-D-20)
recommended that only excursions be recorded since there is no
benefit to keeping records that show normal operating
conditions, unless the EPA considers the sources "guilty until
proven innocent" (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36 and IV-D-121),
(A-90-20: IV-D-19), (A-90-21: IV-D-17), (A-90-22: IV-D-13),
(A-90-23: IV-D-20). Onecommenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated
that by only recording excursions, attention is focused on
problems, resulting in the use of fewer implementing agency
and facility resources.
Four commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.1 and IV-F-3; IV-D-36;
IV-D-77; IV-K-24) stated that data should be retained only
when parameters or emission limits have been exceeded
(deviation-only recordkeeping/reporting). One of the
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-77) recommended that the focus be
on recording deviations and corrective actions, rather than
keeping vast amounts of data reflective of normal operating
conditions. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) said that
process control computer systems utilize principles of
statistical process control in which only the true deviations
from expected operational variability require action. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) added that actions based on
deviations which are not statistically significant can
actually create loss of process control, and that such
statistically insignificant deviations which represent normal
operation should not be recorded. The commenter included
references for additional information on statistical process
control.
One of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that a
source which establishes the representativeness, precision,
and accuracy of a CEM or parameter monitor for an emission
point should be allowed che option to discard data acquired
2-42
-------
during monitoring periods during which no values outside of
acceptable operating limits are recorded. The commenter
explained that the accuracy of the GEM or parameter monitor
could be demonstrated through a quality assurance program of
periodic system response, precision checks and data capture
greater than 90 percent. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77)
recommended averaging the continuously recorded data, for
example, over a three-hour average, and if the average is
found to be within acceptable operating limits, discarding the
data after a limited retention time. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-77) suggested retaining accessible records of excursions
for five years.
Response; Although these commenters did not specifically
mention the term "data compression," some of them have
described systems characteristic of data compression systems.
As stated earlier in this section, the final rule has been
revised to allow sources to request on a case-by-case basis to
use data compression systems in place of the 15-minute
continuous record monitoring system. The EPA hopes this will
allow sources with data compression systems already in place
or planned for the future to utilize these systems in
complying with the HON. Excursion-only recording will not be
allowed in the RON because it would be impossible to verify
how the process and controls were operating during long
periods when there were no records.
2.3.3 Current Use of Automated and Non—Automated Monitoring
Systems
Comment: The proposal preamble requested information on
existing process control computer monitoring systems. In
response to this request, a number of commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-57; IV-D-67; IV-D-77) stated that their
facilities operate process control computer monitoring
systems. One of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-77) listed the
advantages of process control systems to be accessible
historical records of excursions and of the actions taken to
correct them; reduced storage of data volume, resulting in
2-43
-------
decreased cost and increased availability; and increased ease
of implementing agency inspections.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) mentioned that some
parameter monitoring systems both control the manufacturing
process, treatment, and recovery equipment, and obtain
monitoring data. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) explained
that these systems monitor parameters one or more times per
second, but do not retain all data points. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-73) requested that the rule allow other
systems that provide a record sufficient to determine
compliance. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73) suggested the
requirements be defined through the Implementation Plan or
operating permit application.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-79) urged the EPA to
promulgate a flexible rule which reflects the wide variation
in process control techniques, continuous data acquisition
systems, and manual instrumentation reading and logging
procedures currently in use at plant sites.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) explained that a few
years ago their facility began switching from strip chart
recorders and indicators, which require a tremendous amount of
maintenance, to computer-based control and data storage. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67) maintained that the computer-
controlled system allows large amounts of data, approximately
50,000 data points every minute, to be manipulated and
analyzed, resulting in significant cost benefits from more
efficient operations. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-67)
stated that computerized systems are really the only cost-
effective way to accurately manage large amounts of data for
extended periods of time.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) said that their
facility maintains a backup record on a strip chart of some
key parameters relating to compliance. However, the commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-57) acknowledged that the strip charts are not
required to run the process, and are utilized less frequently
because computerized process control systems are superior in
most circumstances. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) also
2-44
-------
stated that readings are sometimes recorded manually, although
this is not common. Their facilities (A-90-19: IV-D-57) may
also have records storage on magnetic media and hard copy.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) stated that the use of
computer systems will be a necessity to meet the extensive
recordkeeping requirements for the RON, title V, and
title VII.
Response; The EPA appreciates the information provided
by these commenters, and agrees that process control computer
monitoring systems can be used to comply with the HON
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements if they
provide all of the information specified in subpart G. The
EPA has made every effort to provide flexibility in the HON
rule. The rule specifies the minimum acceptable recordkeeping
and reporting requirements but allows sources to design their
own systems to meet the requirements. Furthermore, §63.151(f)
and (g) allow sources to apply to monitor alternative
parameters and to propose alternative monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting systems. As noted in
section 2.3.2, provisions have been added to allow for use of
process control computer systems that utilize data
compression, on a case-by-case basis. While the HON does not
specifically require computer systems, it is expected that use
of computer systems will expedite recordkeeping and reporting
and will be used by most sources.
Comment: Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-73; IV-D-110;
IV-F-1.1 and IV-F-3) requested that the rule allow utilization
of existing recordkeeping equipment to the maximum extent
possible. One of these commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-110) was
concerned that some existing computerized monitoring systems
that were installed for process control, may be capable of
providing accurate and reliable data for determining
compliance, yet may not satisfy the proposed requirements for
continuous monitoring systems. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-110) noted that older facilities without computerized
process controls will be especially burdened by the
requirements.
2-45
-------
Response: Sections 63.151(f) and (g) and 63.152(e) allow
case-by-case applications to request alternative monitoring
parameters, alternative monitoring frequencies, and
alternative recordkeeping and reporting systems. These
requests, along with the required information, must be
included in the Implementation Plan or operating permit
application. Further details on minimum requirements for
requests to use non-automated monitoring systems are provided
in a later response to this section. Section 63.8(f) of the
General Provisions also allows applications to the
Administrator to use alternative monitoring methods.
Comment; Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-73;
IV-D-81) suggested that non-automated facilities be allowed to
use strip charts and pie charts of monitored parameters to
determine exceedances and to review the charts and record
values that exceed established parameters rather than values
at a given time interval.
Response; The RON does not preclude use of strip chart
recorders. However, in order to comply with the requirement
to record daily average values and report those that are
outside the established range, the source would need to
calculate daily average values from points read off the strip
chart on days when any recorded value was outside the range.
In order to reduce the burden of daily average calculations,
§63.152(f), specifies that if all recorded values during an
operating day are within the established range, an owner or
operator may record a statement to that effect rather than
calculating a daily average.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81)
recommended allowing sources that do not have automated
monitoring systems to monitor operating parameters
periodically (for example, every 4 hours) instead of once
every 15 minutes in order to reduce the recordkeeping and
reporting burden. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81)
provided specific language to allow such monitoring with
enforcement agency approval.
2-46
-------
Response; The EPA estimates that there are relatively
few facilities that do not already have automated computer
monitoring systems in place. However, in response to public
comments and in order to reduce the burden on those sources
that are not automated, provisions were added in §63.151(g) to
allow non-automated sources to request approval from the
permitting authority to manually read and record the value of
the relevant operating parameter no less frequently than once
per hour. Daily average values must be calculated from the
hourly values and recorded. The request must contain: (1) a
description of the planned monitoring and recordkeeping
system; (2) documentation that the source does not have an
automated system; (3) reasons the source is requesting an
alternative monitoring and recordkeeping system; and
(4) demonstration that the proposed monitoring frequency is
sufficient to represent control device operating conditions
considering typical variability of the specific process and
control device operating parameter being monitored. In
approving the request, the implementing agency may consider
the variability of the parameter, and whether a monitoring
frequency that is longer than once every 15 minutes is
sufficient to characterize control device operation.
2.3.4 Record Retention Time and Accessibility
Comment: Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.3 and
IV-F-5; IV-D-32; IV-K-38; IV-D-48; IV-D-59; IV-D-75; IV-D-82;
IV-D-83) requested that sources have the option of storing
records at an accessible off-site location.
Some of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.3 and IV-F-5;
IV-D-82; IV-D-83) suggested storing the data off-site
consistent with the requirements under the operating permit
program rule. Commenters suggested that off-site storage be
allowed after keeping the records on-site for a period of one
year (A-90-19: IV-D-59); and two years (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-48; IV-D-75; IV-K-38). Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-97) claimed that inspectors seldom request to
review data that is more than 18 months old. One of the
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-59) recommended that on-site
2-47
-------
records be retrievable within a four-hour period and that off-
site records be retrievable within three days.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-57) contended that
additional on-site warehouses for storage of monitoring
records would need to be built to facilitate storage of all
records.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-38) requested provisions
for facilities that may not be occupied by humans
(i.e., remote pumping stations) and for which no computer
terminal is present to allow access to central records
(i.e., for security purposes).
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-33; IV-D-34) requested
that the Agency define the term "readily accessible" in
§63.103 of subpart F. One of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-34) recommended that the term "readily accessible" refer
to storage that is reasonably accessible given the time of
data collection and consistent with the owner's/operator's
record collection and retention policies. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-34) suggested that for recent records (last
six months operating data) readily accessible records be
available at the operating location on the day of inspection.
For records older than six months, readily accessible records
could be stored in compressed fashion or at a separate
location and would be available for inspection within one week
of request, the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) suggested. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) stated that alternate options of
"readily accessible" could be defined with the permitting
authority. The other commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33)
recommended that the term "readily accessible" allow a
reasonable amount of time for someone with an understanding of
the computer system to become available, restore the backup
tape to the system's hard disk which can take one to several
hours, and provide the enforcement agency with a process
engineer to assist in understanding the data.
Response; In response to comment, the record retention
provisions contained in subpart F were revised.
Section 63.103(c) of the HON requires that all records
2-48
-------
specified in subparts F, G, and H be maintained in such a
manner that they can be readily accessed. The most recent two
years of records must be retained on site at the source or
must be accessible from a central location by computer. The
remaining three years of data may be retained off site. The
records may be maintained in hard copy or computer readable
form including, but not limited to, on paper, microfilm,
computer, floppy disk, magnetic tape, or microfiche.
These provisions reduce the burden of record storage by
providing flexibility to store records in the location and
format that are most convenient for the source.
In response to commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-38), special
provisions should not be needed for remote facilities. The
sources subject to the HON are major sources, and the "source"
includes emission points from all the SOCMI process units at a
site. A remote pumping station not occupied by humans not be
a separate source. Records can be retained anywhere at the
source (e.g., at individual process units or in a central
building) as long as they are readily accessible.
Comment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.3 and
IV-F-5; IV-D-32; IV-D-59; IV-D-75; IV-D-82) maintained that
retaining records at a source for five years as required in
the proposal would be burdensome and expensive. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-59) suggested that records be retained for two
instead of five years in order to reduce the recordkeeping
burden and file space needs. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-32) stated that their systems currently calculate and
maintain monitored parameters for up to one year, but could be
programmed to retain data for five years.
Response; The HON and General Provisions require records
to be kept for five years, which is consistent with the
recordkeeping requirements of section 70.6 of the operating
permit program. As explained in the previous response,
records must be maintained in such a manner that they are
readily accessible. The most recent two years of data must be
retained on site or accessible from a central location by
computer and the remaining three years may be stored off site.
2-49
-------
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP 2 EMISSION POINTS
Pnfflment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-l.l and
IV-F-3; IV-D-62; IV-D-75; IV-D-79; IV-D-82; IV-D-92; IV-D-102;
IV-D-110; IV-D-112) recommended that monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Group 2 emission
points be eliminated. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77)
recommended requiring Group 2 emission points to submit
reports only on an annual basis. Some of the commenters
maintained that a source should not have to spend valuable
resources or risk incurring significant penalties for
recordkeeping and reporting violations when no additional
corresponding environmental benefit is achieved (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-62; IV-D-102; IV-D-112) or when the emission
point "is not even subject to the emission standard" (A-90-19:
IV-F-l.l and IV-F-3; IV-D-82).
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36 and
IV-D-121), (A-90-20: IV-D-19), (A-90-21: IV-D-17),
(A-90-22: IV-D-13), (A-90-23: IV-D-20) contended that all
provisions requiring records identifying equipment that is not
subject to the rule should be deleted because by requiring
records, the EPA has in a sense made the source or equipment
subject to the rule, and the source could be fined for failing
to keep these records.
Response; Every Group 1 and Group 2 process vent,
storage vessel, transfer operation, wastewater operation, and
equipment leak emission point associated with a SOCMI process
unit, as defined in subpart F, is subject to the HON.
However, only Group 1 points are required to be controlled to
the level of the RCT. The HON requires only minimal
recordkeeping and reporting for Group 2 emission points. This
approach has been used in previous NSPS and NESHAP such as the
SOCMI distillation and air oxidation NSPS and the benzene
NESHAP. The requirements for Group 2 emission points are used
to determine that the emission point is classified correctly,
thus showing that control requirements are not applicable, and
to catch changes that cause a Group 2 point to become Group 1.
2-50
-------
The records required for Group 2 points include, for
example, storage vessel capacity, annual transfer rack
throughput and rack-weighted average vapor pressure, and
wastewater flow and concentration. A source would be required
to determine this information even if HON did not require
these records because, in order to develop plans to comply
with HON, the source would need to determine whether or not
each point was Group 1 (subject to control requirements). It
makes sense to retain this information on record and identify
Group 2 points in the Implementation Plan or operating permit
application to avoid having to recreate such information
whenever there is a question on whether a point is Group 1 or
Group 2.
In general, there is minimal ongoing recordkeeping and
reporting for Group 2 points. The only recordkeeping that is
required is needed to determine whether the emission point
remains Group 2 or becomes Group 1. For example, for transfer
racks, throughputs and rack weighted average partial pressure
must be calculated each year from the previous year's data
because these values vary from year to year and, therefore,
the Group classification of a rack could change. However,
more extensive reporting is not required if the rack remains
Group 2.
Additional comment summaries, and responses that are
specific to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
Group 2 process vents and transfer racks are contained in
sections 2.4.2 and 4.3 of BID volume 2A, respectively.
2.5 MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING BURDEN
2.5.1 General
Comment; Many commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-35;
IV-D-46; IV-D-62; IV-D-63; IV-D-64; IV-D-72; IV-D-74; IV-D-75;
IV-D-79; IV-D-82; IV-F-5 and IV-D-83; IV-D-86; IV-D-92;
IV-D-98; IV-D-102; IV-D-106; IV-D-110; IV-D-115; IV-F-1.1)
stated that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the HON are excessive or burdensome. Two
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-72; IV-D-106) asserted that the
2-51
-------
requirements were especially burdensome for those sources that
plan to emissions average.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that there is no
rationale for verification for administrative requirements
that are duplicative or unrelated to a control requirement.
Many commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32 and IV-F-1.1 and
IV-F-3; IV-D-32 and IV-F-1.3 and IV-F-5; IV-D-32; IV-D-46;
IV-D-48; IV-D-50; IV-D-62; IV-D-63; IV-D-69; IV-D-74; IV-D-75;
IV-D-77; IV-D-82; IV-D-83; IV-D-102; IV-D-108; IV-D-110;
IV-D-112) cautioned the EPA against requiring monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions that are overly
costly, unnecessary for assessing a source's compliance
status, and provide no environmental benefit.
Response; The EPA has made every effort to reduce the
recordkeeping and reporting burden, and to require only those
records and reports necessary to determine compliance. For
example, in the proposed and promulgated subparts G and H,
almost all reports have been consolidated into the Initial
Notification, the Implementation Plan, the Notification of
Compliance Status, and the Periodic Reports. This simplifies
and reduces the frequency of reporting. Sources have the
option of retaining records either in paper copy or in
computer readable formats, whichever is less burdensome. If
multiple performance tests are conducted for the same kind of
emission point using the same test method, only one complete
test report is submitted along with summaries of the results
of the other tests. This reduces the number of lengthy test
reports to be copied and submitted. For continuously
monitored parameters, periodic reporting is limited to
excursions outside the established ranges. The in-range
values are not required to be reported. Recordkeeping and
reporting for Group 2 points has been minimized.
The single most significant change made to the proposed
rule to reduce the burden is allowing retention of hourly
average values of monitored parameters instead of 15-minute
values for days when there is not an excursion. This change
reduces by a factor of four, the number of records that must
2-52
-------
be digitally converted by computer systems, copied onto tapes
or printed as hard copy, duplicated, and stored.
There are a number of other areas where the burden has
been reduced in the final rule. For instance, the transfer
operation provisions were revised to no longer require five
minute records and to allow design analyses instead of
performance testing for racks that are used infrequently (see
chapter 4.0 of BID volume 2A). Equipment leaks recordkeeping
and reporting requirements have been reduced by streamlining
the reporting system so there are semiannual reports which can
be submitted at the same time as the subpart G reports. To
reduce the leak detection burden, the final rule does not
require response factor adjustments to Method 21. The
requirements to identify and document equipment not in VOHAP
service and equipment in vacuum service have been deleted.
(The rationale for these equipment leaks changes is contained
in the preamble to the final rule and chapter 5.0 of BID
volume 2A).
Wastewater operations monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements have also been reduced. Method 21 is
now required only initially, instead of annually as proposed,
and visual inspections are performed on an annual basis.
Monthly measurements required in table 11 of the proposed
subpart G were deleted, because the initial performance test
is sufficient to determine compliance. A change to the
location of point of generation sampling will reduce the
testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
for some sources because sampling may be done at fewer
locations. The compliance requirements for maintenance
wastewater and maintenance turnaround wastewater have been
combined, which simplifies compliance and reporting. Very
small wastewater containers (less than 0.1 m3 capacity) are no
longer subject to the rule, reducing the monitoring and
recordkeeping burden. These and other changes to the
wastewater provisions are discussed in the wastewater sections
of the policy and technical BID's.
2-53
-------
The provisions to request to use alternative monitoring
and recordkeeping systems have been expanded, providing
sources the flexibility to use their existing monitoring and
recordkeeping equipment as long as the source can demonstrate
compliance with the rule. Non-automated sources can now
request approval to take manual readings and record a value at
least once an hour, for use in determining daily average
values. Sources wishing to use data compression systems can
now request approval to do so. This will allow sources that
have data compression systems already installed or who plan to
install a system to monitor process control, to utilize these
systems if they demonstrate compliance with the rule. These
new provisions should reduce the burden considerably on
affected sources.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) stated that
the level of monitoring in the HON is unwarranted on a "risk-
to-reward" basis and is not mandated by the Act.
Response: The continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters required by the HON is used to determine
continuous compliance with the operating permit requirements
for proper operation of control devices. The parameter
monitoring is necessary to provide information that will
satisfy the requirements of section 114(a)(3) of the Act to
certify compliance status and whether compliance is continuous
or intermittent. The EPA considers the level of monitoring
appropriate and necessary for compliance and disagrees with
the commenter's assertion that the level is unwarranted.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) recommended
deleting the reporting requirements in proposed §§63.117,
63.118, 63.129, and 63.130, claiming that they are burdensome
and unnecessary to sources and regulatory agencies.
Response; The sections of subpart G referred to by the
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) contain all of the reporting
requirements for process vents and transfer. They include the
information that must be submitted in the Notification of
Compliance status, such as performance test results, and
information for the periodic reports, such as monitored
2-54
-------
parameter excursions. These reports are clearly necessary to
determine whether a source is in compliance with the standard.
2.5.2 Violations
Comment; Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-77;
IV-D-110) stated that regulatory agencies should not spend
their resources pursuing minor paperwork violations which do
not contribute to emissions reductions, but should spend their
resources implementing other important programs, such as the
operating permit program (A-90-19: IV-D-32).
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-115) suggested that the EPA
determine the "bare-minimum" requirements for recordkeeping
and reporting that will still render the operating permit
federally enforceable.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-64; IV-D-77) stated that
excessive reporting requirements invite enforcement for
trivial reporting mistakes or omissions. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-64) reminded the EPA that the Act contains
self-reporting requirements and penalties for sources that
ignore or attempt to elude requirements.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36 and
IV-D-121); (A-90-20: IV-D-19); (A-90-21: IV-D-17); (A-90-22:
IV-D-13); (A-90-23: IV-D-20) objected to provisions stating
that a source can be fined for noncompliance because a
datapoint was misplaced even if all equipment at the facility
meets all legal standards.
Response: Under section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act,
source owners or operators have the burden of demonstrating
that each emission unit remains in compliance with all
applicable standards at all times. Although continuous
emission monitors (CEM's) are not always required, there must
still be some means of verifying compliance on a continuous
basis. Regulations must therefore establish monitoring
requirements that are capable of determining continuous
compliance with the applicable standards.
Consistent with the PRA, the EPA always attempts to
reduce the burden of recordkeeping and reporting requirements
on the regulated community to the maximum extent, while still
2-55
-------
maintaining the enforceability of the rule. The types of data
required and frequency of monitoring and recordkeeping are
based on the likely variability of emissions from the kind of
point being regulated. The EPA believes that the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the HON are the
"bare minimum" necessary to determine compliance on a
continuous basis.
Because such data are used directly to determine
compliance, the Agency considers monitoring, recordkeeping,
testing, and reporting requirements to be an integral part of
all regulations developed under the Act. Consequently, not
all "paperwork" violations would be considered minor. While
the EPA attempts to target the majority of its enforcement
resources on major violators of the Act, the EPA does not
disregard "minor" violations of the Act. Moreover, with field
citation authority, the EPA has been provided with a specific
enforcement tool to address these types of violations. The
field citation rule will be proposed in the future under
40 CFR part 59.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) requested
clarification regarding penalties imposed by 1990 amendments
to the Act of $25,000 per "incident" for violations of
emissions limit. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) claimed it
was not clear whether these penalties would be assessed on the
basis of the overall plant limit or with respect to each
emissions point, nor what the implications of using emissions
averaging as a means of compliance are with respect to a
violation of the emissions limit.
Response: The rule does not establish an overall plant
limit; rather each emission point in a source subject to the
HON must comply with control or operating requirements
established for each kind of point. If any individual
emission point experiences an unexcused excursion, this
constitutes a violation that could be subject to the maximum
penalty of $25,000 per day of violation. This penalty may be
assessed for each violation at each control device per day.
(If more than one rule applies to a point or control device,
2-56
-------
more than one violation may be cited for each point or control
device found to be out of compliance.)
These same provisions apply to emission points involved
in an emissions average. If any controlled point in an
average experiences an unexcused excursion, the point is
liable for up to the $25,000 maximum penalty per violation per
day. Moreover, if the violation also results in noncompliance
with the quarterly averaging check or the annual averaging
balance, it counts as yet another violation, which is subject
to the penalty. Therefore, the source may be penalized up to
a maximum of $25,000 for every day a point experiences an
unexcused excursion and another $25,000 for every day of the
quarter or year that the average is out of balance. It should
be pointed out, however, that the EPA will exercise its
enforcement discretion in assessing penalties.
2.5.3 Cost Estimates
Comment; Several commenters commented on the EPA's
estimates for costs of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting, and others provided their own estimates. Some of
the commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.1; IV-D-82; IV-F-5 and
IV-D-83) stated that the preamble indicates that as much as
25 percent of the HON's cost is attributable to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting and that this cost is too high.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-102) criticized the EPA for
not addressing the significant recordkeeping and reporting
costs in the preamble and Economic Impacts Analysis that
accompanied the proposed rule. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-102) stated that an October 8, 1992 memorandum from the
EPA to OMB predicted annual costs of $48.1 million. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-102) asserted that this estimate may
be low and that the EPA should re-evaluate the extensive
recordkeeping and reporting requirements before issuing the
final rule.
Commenters estimated that the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the HON will require the
equivalent of: one person for each major SOCMI unit (as much
as 3 person-years) for a resource cost of up to $750,000 per
2-57
-------
year per plant (A-90-19: IV-D-57); and 0.5 to 1.5 person-
years for each process unit (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-62;
IV-D-77; IV-D-102; IV-G-4).
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36 and
IV-D-121), (A-90-20: IV-D-19), (A-90-21: IV-D-17),
(A-90-22: IV-D-13), (A-90-23: IV-D-20) stated that the HON
recordkeeping burden will greatly exceed the 1600 person-hours
per initial response, and 3200 person-hours per source
annually that the EPA estimated in the proposal. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-35 and IV-D-36 and IV-D-121)/
(A-90-20: IV-D-19), (A-90-21: IV-D-17), (A-90-22: IV-D-13),
(A-90-23: IV-D-20) maintained that the cost to hire another
two or four people per process unit would come at the expense
of making their operations less efficient, less productive,
and possibly less protective of health, safety, and the
environment.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-115) reported that one
source has estimated they will need to hire seven full-time
employees to comply with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements even though they already meet most control
requirements. Three of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-77; IV-D-115) stated that the additional employees will
be required regardless of whether a source has to install any
new control equipment to comply with the HON.
Response; As described in the response in section 2.5.1,
several changes were made between proposal and promulgation to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden. The costs of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting were recalculated
considering both the commenter's suggestions that the original
burden may have been underestimated, and the changes made to
the rule.
In reevaluation of the associated burdens over the first
three years after promulgation, including the requirement
revisions, the EPA estimates that the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting will require approximately
5,200 person-hours per year at an average size existing
source. About 2,500 of these hours per year are attributed to
2-58
-------
the equipment leaks standards. For a new source at a site
with an existing source, the EPA estimates that this burden
would be increased by approximately 500 hours per year on the
average. For a new source, not at an existing source site,
the EPA estimates the burden to be approximately 10,700 hours
per year on the average. The new estimated costs associated
with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting will generally
add an additional one third to the estimated control costs
over the first three years after promulgation. The total
national annual cost of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting is estimated to be $70 million per year, compared to
total national costs of the rule of $230 million per year.
For additional information on this topic, see section V.C of
the preamble to the final rule, or the SF-83 and Supporting
Statement, which is contained in Docket number A-90-19,
category IV-H.
Comment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-74;
IV-D-110) asserted that for a single operating parameter being
monitored on a control device, a total of at least 175,200
data values must be recorded and retained over a five-year
period (four data values/hr X 24 hr/day X 365 day/yr X 5 yr =
175,200 data values). The .commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-74; IV-D-110) contended that multiple emission points and
control devices are present at each major plant site and that
the total number of data elements required to be recorded,
retained, and readily accessible at a source will be
staggering.
Response; The final rule allows retention of hourly
average data instead of 15-minute data for continuously
monitored parameters on days when there are not excursions.
This will reduce the number of data elements that must be
retained by a factor of four. The rationale for this change
is explained in section 2.3.1. It should also be noted that
data values are recorded only during periods of process or
control device operation, which may be less than 24 hours per
day. Furthermore, if multiple emission points are routed to a
common control device, this will reduce the number of data
2-59
-------
values obtained, because the parameter monitoring is done at
the control device, not at each of the emission points ducted
to the device.
Comment: One conunenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) stated that
the HON will require reporting on 10 to 100 times as many
emission or internal control points compared to NPDES
monitoring. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) estimated that
a typical facility will need to devote at least 50 times the
resources to HON testing, reporting, and recordkeeping as
compared to the NPDES program.
Response; The EPA acknowledges that because a typical
SOCMI facility releases HAP emissions to the atmosphere from
many emission points, the required monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting may be extensive. A source may release
emissions from multiple reactor or distillation process vents,
numerous storage tanks, a number of loading racks, various
points in the wastewater collection and treatment system, and
equipment leaks. Therefore, to reduce HAP emissions to the
level of MACT controls, the associated monitoring and
reporting must be required for many individual emission points
at a facility. This is a different situation from NPDES
discharges. Typically, plants release plant wastewaters to
water bodies through only a few points. Therefore, only a few
effluent discharge points must be monitored under the NPDES
program.
It should be noted that if a SOCMI facility routes
multiple emission points together to the same control device,
this will reduce the monitoring burden of the HON, because the
monitoring requirements apply to each control device. The
relative resources required for HON monitoring and NPDES
monitoring will vary depending on site-specific
characteristics for each source.
2.5.4 Compliance with the General Provisions
Many comments were received on the overlap between the
HON and the General Provisions. These comments are summarized
and responded to in section 6.1 of BID volume 2D.
2-60
-------
2.5.5 Impact on Regulatory Agencies
Comment: Four conunenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-62;
IV-D-63; IV-D-64) suggested eliminating any unnecessary
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that
will be burdensome to the implementing agencies responsible
for enforcing the rule. One of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-63) stated that reducing the requirements may enhance
enforcement of the rule because implementing agencies would
not be required to evaluate unnecessary data and information.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) contended that the
public will benefit from streamlined monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements because the amount
of extraneous information available for review will be
lessened.
Response; The EPA recognizes that unnecessary
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements would
burden both the source and the enforcement agencies. Every
attempt has been made to reduce the amount of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to only that which is necessary
to demonstrate compliance. Examples of actions the EPA has
taken to reduce the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
burden are described in section 2.5.1 of this BID volume.
2.6 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER
REQUIREMENTS
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-108) urged the
EPA to make the frequency and timing of reports consistent for
all MACT standards and for operating permits.
Response: The HON requires periodic reports to be
submitted semiannually in most cases, although certain
circumstances require quarterly reporting instead. Semiannual
reporting is consistent with §70.6(a)(3) of the operating
permit program rule.
The General Provisions also provide a consistent
framework. However, other reporting schedules and frequencies
may be appropriate in future MACT standards.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-108) recommended
that the EPA develop standardized reporting forms in order to
2-61
-------
organize reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all
Clean Air Act regulations on one form.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) favored
consolidating the HON recordkeeping and reporting requirements
with existing requirements whenever possible. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-58) requested that the EPA provide guidance in
the General Provisions, the HON, and other MACT rules to
describe which recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are preeminent and address any inconsistencies
among the HON and other rulemakings, such as NSPS and existing
NESHAP.
Response: In order to clarify which requirements to
comply with when regulations overlap, the EPA has included a
list of the requirements and which is more stringent in
§63.110 of the final rule.
The EPA believes that in most cases the HON contains more
stringent requirements than in other existing regulations.
For these cases, the EPA has decided to override the
requirements of the existing regulations with the requirements
of the HON. In other cases, the EPA has specified which parts
of each rule are still required. And in other cases, the EPA
has allowed for site-specific determination of requirements.
This topic is discussed further in section 6.6 of BID
volume 2D. The particular recordkeeping and reporting
provisions that apply to the HON are listed in table 3 of
subpart F of the HON.
If an emission point is covered by HON and a standard not
specifically addressed in §63.110 of subpart G, the operating
permit will establish requirements based on what is in the
standards. A case-by-case determination of which standard is
more stringent will be made.
Unfortunately, due to the site-specific information that
must be included in reports, standardized reporting forms are
not feasible. However, the operating permit program addresses
this issue to some extent by helping coordinate amongst rules
and by reducing the overlap.
2-62
-------
one commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-68) requested
that the HON and the General Provisions provide flexibility to
State and local agencies that require emission controls more
stringent than the HON by requiring less burdensome
monitoring/ recordkeeping and reporting.
Response ; The Act allows State and local agencies to
enforce regulations that are more stringent than Federal
rules. A more stringent rule may or may not have more
stringent monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions.
All sources subject to the HON must comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions contained
in subparts F, G, and H. The HON contains provisions which
specify which requirements owners or operators must comply
with when they are subject to existing Federal regulations. A
source with a more stringent State or local standard would be
required to comply with the provisions of that standard.
Comment : One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) requested
that the HON contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are consistent with and not duplicative of
the requirements under the operating permits program rule and
the enhanced monitoring rule. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-74) recommended that the EPA review the HON in light of
the title V and VII requirements as implementation of the Act
progresses. Other areas of concern for the commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-74) included: use of parameter monitoring
data to assess compliance with the permit conditions and the
emissions limits; dfe minimis emission points; consistency in
the conditions for parameter monitoring; and emission
calculations. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) stated that
the HON appears to be consistent with many title VII issues.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-29) questioned the
frequency with which reports will be required to be submitted
to ensure compliance under the HON once the enhanced
monitoring regulation is promulgated, because the HON
currently requires semi-annual reporting, and the draft
enhanced monitoring regulation requires quarterly reporting.
2-63
-------
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-68) claimed that the RON
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are more
stringent than requirements in the draft enhanced monitoring
regulation.
Response; Recordkeeping and reporting requirements play
an important role in both the operating permits program and
enhanced monitoring program, as these programs rely heavily on
self-monitoring and self-reporting by individual sources.
While the EPA certainly aims to avoid duplication in its
regulatory programs, it is important to note that there are
basic differences between the programs highlighted above.
Although regulations developed under title III will
incorporate the basic concepts of enhanced monitoring, the
enhanced monitoring rule itself will not apply to part 63
sources, and hence, will not affect those sources subject to
the HON. While the Agency will use the enhanced monitoring
reference document as guidance for developing monitoring
requirements for many of the MACT standards, the two programs
are distinct and not duplicative.
The operating permits program contains monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements minimally sufficient
for some sources to verify their own compliance and submit
compliance certifications. These monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements serve as a baseline minimum for all
sources subject to title V. However, for certain sources,
more frequent or substantial monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting are necessary to certify compliance. Consequently,
regulations developed under title III, including the HON, will
incorporate additional requirements that go beyond the
compliance provisions established under the operating permits
program. Although these additional compliance requirements
may appear to overlap, duplicate records or reports are not
required. Sources must comply with only the most stringent
requirements.
If an emission point is subject to existing NSPS or RACT
requirements and HON control is the most stringent, then HON
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements would
2-64
-------
apply. Consequently, after the enhanced monitoring rule is
promulgated, emission points subject to NSPS or RACT would be
required to conduct monitoring of sufficient quality to meet
the standard for enhanced monitoring. These requirements may
be more stringent than the monitoring provisions required of
sources subject only to the HON.
2.7 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-68) stated that
the HON is a "distributed process control regulation" instead
of a technology-based standard because of the excessive
requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, and continuous
monitoring.
Response: It is unclear what the commenter means by a
"distributed process control regulation." All NESHAP, as well
as other standards set under the Act such as NSPS, contain not
only emission limits (or design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards) but also associated testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions are
necessary to provide both the source and the implementing
agency the ability to determine compliance with the standards.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) recommended
that only emission points likely to emit more than 1 ton/yr be
required to comply with the testing and reporting requirements
for 5 years and that the implementing agency could expand this
on a case-by-case basis.
Response: In order to determine compliance, it is
necessary to keep the required records and submit the required
reports for each emission point subject to the HON. The rule
is structured to require less recordkeeping and reporting for
Group 2 emission points, which tend to be emission points with
less emissions potential. The 1 ton/year recommendation would
be very complex to implement. This approach would require the
source to calculate emissions from each emission point to
determine whether each point is subject to reporting, and the
HON regulation would need to specify detailed emission
calculation procedures and equations so that emissions were
2-65
-------
determined on a consistent basis. The recordkeeping and
reporting system that was developed for the HON is less
burdensome and more effective than the approach suggested by
the commenter.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-115)
suggested all reports be allowed to be submitted
electronically. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-115) argued
that this would reduce paperwork and be useful in establishing
national databases for MACT, Pollution Prevention, and
alternative test methods.
Response; Subpart F has been revised to specify that, if
acceptable to both the regulatory agency and the owner or
operator of the source, reports may be submitted on electronic
media. This provision applies to reports required by
subparts F, G, or H.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-38) requested
that the HON continue to override proposed §63.10(b)(l) of the
General Provisions [as was done in proposed §63.103(a)(5)],
which requires that computer files be backed up on a floppy
disk. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-38) discussed how their
company has progressed beyond the use of floppy disks and now
uses cassette tapes for storage purposes.
Response: The final HON rule overrides §63.10(b)(l) of
the final General Provisions. A source may use whatever means
is most useful and cost effective for storing records and
other data.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-86) suggested
that §§63.152 and 63.182 define who may sign the documents,
certifications, and reports required to be submitted, as is
done in the Clean Water Act and RCRA regulations.
Response; The signature of reports is addressed in the
General Provisions, so it is not necessary to include
provisions in §63.152 or §63.182. All reports must be signed
by a "responsible official" as defined in §63.2 of the General
Provisions. Compliance demonstrations and reports required by
the operating permit program rule must also be signed by a
2-66
-------
"responsible official" as defined in section 70.2 of
40 CFR 70.
Ppmfflent; One conunenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) commended the
EPA for limiting reporting to periods when operating
parameters are outside established ranges and results of other
inspections where problems are detected, stating that this
significantly reduces the amount of unnecessary information
required to be reported.
Response; The EPA appreciates the commenter's (A-90-19:
IV-D-32) support. The EPA has tried to keep the reporting
requirements to only those instances when problems are
detected. Monitoring data that is within range must be
recorded and maintained but need not be reported. This
approach minimizes the paperwork burden, yet assures the
information necessary to determine compliance is available.
2-67
-------
3.0 COMPLIANCE
3.1 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) requested
that proposed §63.100(f) (2,) be revised to specify that the
compliance deadline is measured from the date the final rule
is promulgated and not from the final rule's "effective date,"
because this wording may be confusing.
Response; Subpart F has been revised to specify the date
of promulgation (the date of publication in the Federal
Register) as suggested by the commenter. This revision
improves the clarity, but does not change the meaning of the
section.
Comment: Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-36; IV-D-89;
IV-K-73) opposed more stringent compliance deadlines for new
sources than for existing sources. One of the commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-36) requested that sources which are new or
reconstructed between December 31, 1992 and the compliance
date be granted the same compliance date as existing sources
(3 years after promulgation).
The second commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-89) asserted that
new sources should be allowed at least a six-month interim
status from promulgation to the compliance date, during which
time industries could be certain of the final requirements.
Response: Section 112(i) of the Act requires new sources
to comply at start-up or promulgation (whichever is later).
The HON cannot override the Act.
Comment: Many commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33;
IV-D-48; IV-D-56; IV-D-57; IV-D-69; IV-D-73; IV-D-75; IV-D-77;
IV-D-79; IV-D-81; IV-D-86; IV-D-92; IV-D-112; IV-F-1.1 and
IV-F-3) stated that it will be difficult or impossible for
3-1
-------
some sources to meet the HON's 3-year compliance date due to
both obvious and unforeseen circumstances. The commenters
went on to say that the need for a compliance extension may
not be recognized until after the Implementation Plan is due,
and that sources should be allowed to apply for a compliance
extension up until the compliance date. Reasons the
commenters included for needing additional time to reach
compliance were: vendor/supplier delivery delays and vendor
problems in keeping up with the high demand for control
devices for complying with the HON, other Act programs, and
company voluntary programs; permitting delays; construction
delays; labor strikes; inclement weather; safety concerns in
modifying processes or adding control devices; safety
inspections; engineering, design, testing, procurement, and
construction steps and the increased demand for engineering,
testing, and construction services caused by the HON and other
air programs; studies; and unexpected performance problems
encountered during start-up. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-33) cited an instance where they were first quoted a
delivery time of 6 to 12 weeks for an analyzer, but when they
ordered the analyzer, the delivery time had increased to 24 to
26 weeks due to high demand caused by the BIF rule. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) believed similar vendor supply
delays could occur due to the HON.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) stated that the
additional time could be used to determine the impact of the
Benzene Waste NESHAP, and to allow the development of
pollution prevention and waste minimization practices instead
of "end-of-pipe" controls.
Several of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-33;
IV-D-75; IV-D-81) contended that the Act places no
restrictions on the timing of an application for a compliance
extension.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-86; IV-F-1.1 and IV-F-3)
requested that a deadline for the EPA to approve the
compliance extension be added to the rule.
3-2
-------
Response; In the preamble to the proposed HON rule, the
EPA requested comment on the potential difficulties of
complying with the HON in the 3-year compliance time and use
of the 1-year extension.
Section 63.151(a)(6)(i) of the final HON rule, which
overrides and replaces §63.6(1)(4)(i)(B) of the General
Provisions, states that requests for extensions for a source
as a whole must be submitted in one of 3 ways: (1) as part of
the operating permit application; (2) as part of the Initial
Notification; (3) or as a separate submittal no later than the
date the Implementation Plan is required. The Implementation
Plan is due 12 months before compliance for emission points
not included in an emissions average, and 18 months before
compliance for emission points in an emissions average. It is
reasonable that the owner or operator should know by these
dates whether there are likely to be unavoidable delays that
could cause the source to need a compliance extension.
Information to include in the request for a compliance
extension is included in §63.6(i)(6)(i) of the General
Provisions. A deadline for EPA approval has not been added to
the HON because it is addressed in the General Provisions
under §63.6(1)(12)(i). Section 63.6(1)(12)(1) of the General
Provisions states that the Administrator will notify the owner
or operator in writing of approval or of intention to deny
approval of a request for an extension of compliance within
30 calendar days after receipt of.--the information necessary
for review. The 30-day.sapprovaLrox. denial period begins after
the owner or operator is notified in writing that their
application is complete. The Administrator will notify the
owner or operator in writing of the status of their
application within 3O calendar days after receipt of the
original application and within 30 calendar days after receipt
of supplementary information that is submitted.
As stated in the promulgation BID for the General
Provisions, the EPA considers the compliance extension
provisions contained in the General Provisions to provide
ample time for a source to determine whether they can meet
3-3
-------
their compliance date. The advance request allows sufficient
time for the implementing agency to make a -Determination
before the compliance date while still all., .ing the source
adequate time to come into compliance if an extension request
is denied. The EPA considers the deadline for compliance
extension requests to be reasonable and, therefore, no changes
have been made in the final rule.
Letters were also submitted to the General Provisions
docket requesting that industry be allowed to submit requests
for compliance extensions up until the compliance date. This
issue has been addressed in Chapter 2 of the promulgation BID
to the General Provisions.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) recommended
that §63.100(f) of the proposed rule be changed to require
compliance "as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
3 years after the compliance date." The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-85) also recommended that the compliance schedule include
intermediate dates for completing contracts, beginning
construction, etc., so that the implementing agency may
intervene if it appears a source will not reach compliance on
schedule. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) also suggested
that §63.100(f) clearly state that a 1-year extension may be
granted if the additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls.
Response: The EPA understands the commenter"s desire
that sources reach compliance as soon as practicable.
However, in most cases, it is likely to take sources about
3 years to comply with the HON and the commenter's suggestions
will not result in earlier emissions reductions.
Several steps will be necessary to achieve compliance.
For example, sources will need to determine which processes
and =-ission points are subjec- to the HON, characterize each
emiss»_on point through calculations or testing to determine
whether it is a Group 1 or 2 emission point, assess
alternative compliance strategies for their emission points,
design control equipment, order and install control equipment,
and check whether control equipment is operating properly.
3-4
-------
Because the HON may affect a large number of emission points
at a source, these activities will take longer than if only a
few points were affected. In fact, several commenters
believed there could be unavoidable delays that would cause
compliance to take longer than 3 years (see previous comments
in this section).
Establishing site-specific schedules would increase the
paperwork and regulatory burden for both industry and the
implementing agencies; and because compliance is likely to
take 3 years in most cases, site-specific schedules probably
would not result in significant additional emission
reductions. However, if States wish to require earlier
compliance or specific schedules for attaining compliance,
they could do this through the delegation process established
under section 112(1) of the Act. This process is implemented
through subpart E and was published in the Federal Register on
November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262). Such a change could be made
by a State under the "Option 1 - adjustment to Federal rule"
provisions of the section 112(1) rules.
Both §63.100(k) [previously §63.100(f) in the proposed
rule] and the paragraph on extension requests in §63.151(a)(6)
of subpart G state that a request for an extension must
include the data described in §63.6(i)(6)(i) of the General
Provisions. The General Provisions [§63.6(i)(8) through (16)]
govern the review and approval of requests for extensions of
compliance for HON and other NESHAP. With these requirements
in mind, the EPA decided not to revise §63.100(k) of subpart F
as suggested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-69) suggested
requiring HON sources to be in compliance at the time the
source's operating permit is issued. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-69) stated that such provisions would simplify the
applicability determination, eliminate the need for some
sources to submit Implementation Plans, and others to submit
applications for compliance deadline extensions.
Response: The Act does not allow a source more than
3 years to reach compliance. The due date for HON compliance
3-5
-------
cannot be based on issuance of the operating permit because
issuance will vary fr state tc state and jlant to plant. In
some cases, the opera* ,g permit jould be -^sued well before
the compliance date, wnile in other cases it may be issued
much later. Thus, it is more appropriate to specify a 3-year
compliance period and not tie the compliance date to the
operating permit issuance.
Comment: A number of commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-34; IV-D-36; IV-D-81; IV-D-98; IV-D-112) advocated
granting a Group 2 emission point that becomes a Group 1
emission point [proposed §63.100(f) (4) ] up to 3 years to come
into compliance with Group l control requirements. Two
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81) noted t
section 112(i)(3)(A) of the Act allows up to 3 .aars for
existing sources to meet MACT requirements. The commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-34; IV-D-81; IV-D-112) maintained
that the prcnosed 150-da- period is not enough time for a
source to e . ineer, perm--, purchase, and construct control
equipment to meet Group 1 MACT requirements and that it
conflicts with draft language for both the section 112(g) rule
and the General Provisions. Two of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-81) suggested that when a facility notifies the
EPA of a Group 2 to a Group 1 status change, tha~ the facility
could inform the EPA of the time required to install the
controls.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that
150 days may not be a sufficient amount of time for a source
making a group status change to come into compliance.
Therefore, the final rule in §63.100(k)(4) of subpart F has
been revised to state that a Group 2 emission point that
becomes a Group 1 emission point must come into compliance as
expeditiously as practical, but not later than 3 years after
the change in group status occurs. The source must obtain
approval of their compliance schedule from the implementing
agency. The rule was also revised to require that a Group 2
emission point that becomes a Group 1 emission point must
report the group status change in the next Periodic Report
3-6
-------
instead of in a separate report. This change will simplify
reporting.
3.2 THE ROLE OF MONITORING IN DETERMINING COMPLIANCE
3.2.1 Compliance Certification
Comment; TWO conunenters (A-90-19: IV-D-72; IV-D-106)
supported the provisions specifying the type of information
necessary to certify compliance. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-85 and IV-K-1) contended that the provisions for
compliance certification in the proposed rule are inadequate
and that the rule should require operators to certify that
emission points are achieving the reference control
efficiencies, and should require adequate emission monitoring
to determine compliance. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85)
said the allowance of excused excursions is inconsistent with
the compliance certification provisions in sections 114(a)(3)
and 504(b) of the Act.
Response; The EPA has considered how sources would
demonstrate compliance in light of the requirements of
section 114(a)(3) of the Act and §70.6(c) of the operating
permit program rule, which require submission of "compliance
certifications" from sources subject to the operating permits
program rule. The continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters required by the HON is used to determine
continuous compliance with the operating permit requirements
for proper operation of control devices. The parameter
monitoring results will satisfy the requirements of
section 114(a)(3) to certify compliance status and whether
compliance is continuous or intermittent. For the HON,
compliance with permit conditions means operating with the
excused number of parameter excursions or fewer. As explained
in section 3.2.5, a limited number of daily excursions outside
the established parameter range are excusable, to account for
infrequent, unforeseen circumstances that may be beyond the
operator's control and cause parameter fluctuations. Over
three years, the number of excusable excursions phases down to
one per semiannual reporting period.
3-7
-------
Continuous emission monitoring was considered, but was
found to be technically infeasible as described in
section 3.2.4. Continuous parameter monitoring is a feasible
alternative, and is consistent with section 504(b) of the Act
which states that "continuous emission monitoring need not be
required if alternative methods are available. . .for
determining compliance."
3.2.2 Use of Operating Parameter Monitoring to Determine
Compliance
Comment; A number of commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-57; iv-D-62; IV-D-73; IV-D-77; IV-D-81; IV-D-112)
supported the compliance approach in the rule that requires
installation and proper operation of the RCT, and measurement
of operating parameters.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) supported monitoring of
a surrogate operating parameter instead of emissions
monitoring, and maintained that this approach appears
consistent with the draft enhanced monitoring provisions.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.1 and IV-F-3; IV-D-77)
favored basing compliance determinations on the installation
and proper operation of the RCT or its equivalent, and not on
whether a surrogate parameter has been exceeded.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81; IV-D-112)
commended the EPA for developing compliance provisions which
recognize that even the best-maintained conrrci equipment
cannot continuously operate within prescribed operating
parameters and that measured operating parameters are merely
surrogates for measuring actual control efficiency. The
commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81; IV-D-112) further
argued that operation outside parameter ranges does not prove
a device is not achieving the desired operating conditions.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-69) stated that a
distinction should be made between a sampling failure and a
control system failure.
Response; The EPA appreciates the commenters1 support of
the compliance approach in the HON. Under the NSPS and NESHAP
programs, parameter monitoring has traditionally been used as
3-8
-------
a tool in determining whether control devices are being
maintained and operated properly. As at proposal, the HON
rule requires monitoring of control device operating
parameters and reporting of periods when parameter values are
outside site-specific ranges. If the daily average value is
outside the established range for more than the excused number
of excursions, then it is a violation of the operating
conditions. The response to the next comment more fully
discusses the rationale for using operating parameters to
determine compliance. Several commenters referred to
monitoring of a "surrogate" parameter. The HON requires
monitoring of the control device operating parameters instead
of monitoring of the actual emissions.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-69) is correct in pointing
out that there is a difference between a monitoring failure
and a control device failure. A monitoring failure could
result in a disruption of continuous monitoring of a control
device. If a control device monitor is out of operation for
more than the amount of time allowed in §63.152(c) of
subpart G, then it is considered an excursion. Generally, if
measured data values are not available, due to a monitor
malfunction or other reason, for at least 75 percent of the
operating hours in a day, then this constitutes an excursion.
Section 63.152(c) also provides additional details on
monitoring data sufficiency and excursions for days when
control devices operate for only short periods (i.e., less
than 4 hours) and for data compressions systems. Excursions
are discussed in section 3.2.5 of this chapter.
If a control system failure occurs, then it would either
be classified as a malfunction or an excursion. If it is a
malfunction that has been included in the source's start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, and the owner or operator
followed the procedures outlined in their plan, which is
required in §63.6(e)(3) of the General Provisions, then the
event would not be counted as an excursion. Otherwise, if a
control system problem causes the daily average value to be
outside the established range for more than the excused number
3-9
-------
of excursions, then it is a violation of the operating
conditions.
Comment; Seven commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-57;
IV-D-77; IV-D-81; IV-D-97; IV-D-106; IV-D-112) maintained that
monitored control device operating parameters will fluctuate
for a variety of reasons, such as electronic noise, sensor
problems, mechanical problems such as thermocouple or
condenser failure, electrical problems, power surges, off-
specification feedstocks or fuel, control device short
malfunctions, process unit upsets, statistical variability,
instrument problems, control valve problems, extreme
environmental conditions, catalyst poisoning, coding water
contamination, vendor error/miscalculation, sample transfer
line plugging and excessive moisture, dirt, or meteorological
conditions such as temperature fluctuations, icing, and
thunderstorms, and that such fluctuations should not be
considered excursions.
Numerous commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-57/ IV-D-69;
IV-D-75; IV-D-77; IV-D-79; IV-D-81; IV-D-112) recommended
removing the provisions in proposed §63.152(c)(2) stating that
parameter range exceedances indicate that the owner or
operator has failed to apply control in a manner that achieves
the required permit conditions because of the unanticipated
fluctuations described in the preceding paragraph, and because
they do not believe a parameter excursion is proof that the
MACT standard has been violated. Five of these commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-75; IV-D-77; IV-D-81; IV-D-112)
contended that variations and fluctuations occur, and that
sources should be allowed to demonstrate through performance
testing or other evidence that no violation of MACT has
occurred. A number of commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.1 and
IV-F-3; IV-D-77; IV-D-82; IV-D-83) stated that a direct
correlation between the parameter values monitored and the
efficiency of the control devices has not been established.
Response; It is reasonable to use monitored operating
parameter excursions to determine compliance with the
requirements for proper operation and maintenance, because the
3-10
-------
selected monitoring parameters are the key parameters
representing control device operation and performance. The
EPA, however, appreciates the reasons commenters provided for
why control device operating parameters may fluctuate and has
allowed for excused excursions and malfunctions that are not
considered violations.
Under the rule, monitoring of control device operating
parameters and reporting of periods when parameter values are
outside site-specific ranges is required. The source is
provided the flexibility to establish appropriate site-
specific ranges that represent proper operation with their
permitting authority. These operating parameter ranges are
then written into their operating permit and are enforceable.
If the daily average value is outside the established range
for more than the excused number of excursions, then it is a
violation of the operating conditions. To demonstrate annual
compliance, section 114(a)(3) of the Act and section 70.6(c)
of the operating permit program rule require the submission of
annual "compliance certifications" from sources subject to the
operating permit program. In the case of the HON, a source
can certify compliance if it operates within the excused
number of excursions for each control device.
The rule includes provisions that would allow for some of
the events cited by the commenters to be considered
malfunctions instead of excursions. While it is not possible
to foresee every possible event that could cause an exceedance
of an operating parameter, a number of these would be
considered malfunctions, and should be included in the
source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, required in
§63.6(e)(3) of the General Provisions. If a malfunction
occurs and it is included in the start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, and the source follows their plan, then the
occurrence is not counted as an excursion. If an occurrence
that fits the characteristics of a malfunction occurs, but it
is not described in the source's plan, and the daily average
parameter value is outside the established range, then the
event counts as an excursion. If the owner or operator
3-11
-------
believes the same type of malfunction may occur in the future
and cannot be prevented, then they are encouraged to revise
their plan to include the malfunction.
As explained in section 3.2.5 of this chapter, a limited
number of excursions per reporting period are "excused" and
are not considered violations. This provision addresses the
concern that some unavoidable parameter fluctuations may occur
that are not included in a source's malfunction plan.
If a source operates outside the established parameter
ranges for more than the excused number of excursions, this is
a violation of the operating conditions, but not the emission
limit. The EPA recognizes that for the emission points
regulated by the HON, an operating parameter outside the
established range does not conclusively mean that the emission
limit has been violated. The emission points regulated by the
HON are more diverse than most sources that will be regulated
by other NESHAP. These emission points exhibit a wide range
of characteristics; for example, a large number of different
HAP's can be emitted, and there are wide ranges of flow rates
and HAP concentrations. There are also a number of factors
that influence the percent emission reduction achieved by some
of the possible control devices. Because of this complexity,
it would be difficult to determine, without extensive testing,
whether operation slightly outside a parameter range means
that the emission limit has been violated. The implementing
agency may request testing to determine compliance with the
emission limit if there is a concern.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) supported the
use of only one surrogate operating parameter for each type of
control device as shown in table 3. One of the commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-69) requested that the number of monitored
operating parameters be kept to a minimum to minimize the
burden and expense of complying with the rule.
Response; While monitoring one parameter is sufficient
for many control devices, some types of control devices will
have multiple surrogate operating parameters. For example, if
a scrubber is applied after a combustor to control a
3-12
-------
halogenated stream, pH, liquid flow rate, and gas flow rate
are monitored to determine proper operation. In this case,
both pH and the liquid/gas ratio are important in determining
whether the scrubber is operated properly. These parameters
are shown on the table referred to by the commenter. The
operating parameter(s) listed in the table were selected
because they have a significant impact on control device
performance and are technically feasible to monitor at a
reasonable cost.
Owners or operators can apply to monitor site-specific
parameter(s) as provided in §63.151(f) and §63.152(e) of
subpart G. The request will need to justify why either one
parameter or a combination of parameters are sufficient to
indicate proper control device operation.
3.2.3 Site-Specific Ranges
Comment; Numerous commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-33; IV-D-34; IV-D-57; IV-D-69; IV-D-74; IV-D-77; IV-D-81;
IV-D-97) supported the provisions requiring sources to
establish site-specific parameter ranges to indicate proper
operating conditions. Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-57; IV-D-69; IV-D-81) contended that the site-specific
approach balances the need for control with the reality of
operational variability. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74)
suggested that the EPA clarify that manufacturers'
specifications could be appropriate for establishing the
range.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) strongly supported the
provisions for each source to develop specific ranges for each
emission point and include these in the operating permit or
Notification of Compliance Status; and the same commenter also
strongly supported the provisions to allow sources to request
to monitor site-specific alternative parameters. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) provided the results of an
evaluation they had performed on the example parameters and
ranges provided in table 6A of the preamble. Based on this
analysis, the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) concluded that in
some cases, the example ranges in the proposal preamble seemed
3-13
-------
appropriate, but in other cases, a different parameter and/or
a different range would be needed to accommodate site-specific
conditions. Some of the examples cited by the commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-34) include:
• Silty water or high summertime temperatures in the
south may make the 6 °C exit temperature range for
condensers unachievable.
• Incinerator temperatures may vary by more than 50 °F
depending on the BTU content of the feed and excess
oxygen; however, excess oxygen, CO, and/or residence
time may be more important than temperature, and
some sites may wish to monitor these parameters.
• For scrubbers on halogenated streams, maintaining pH
within a range of ±1 is feasible for scrubbers
operating at low pH, but may be difficult for
scrubbers with effluent pH in the range of 4 to 7
where a small change in OH~ or H+ concentrations
result in a relatively larger fluctuation in pH
value; furthermore, differential pressure or flow
rate of the absorbent may be more easily monitored.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) supported establishing
site-specific ranges, but asserted that selecting an arbitrary
minimum or maximum value or alternative range is
inappropriate, and that it can be difficult to establish
definite correlations by testing a source operating at maximum
conditions. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that
extreme (e.g., maximum) conditions may show a different degree
of control than that achieved on the average. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-77) suggested that corrective action should be
taken if the value of a parameter is two or more standard
deviations above or below the mean value of the parameter, and
that this would be an appropriate way to establish a site-
specific range.
Response; The promulgated HON retains the site-specific
parameter range approach favored by the commenters. Allowing
site-specific ranges accommodates site-specific variation in
emission point characteristics and control device designs. As
3-14
-------
stated in the proposal preamble, based on the information
available, it appears to be difficult to establish ranges or
maximum values that would be applicable in all cases. The
promulgated methods for establishing operating parameter
ranges balances the need for technical certainty and
operational feasibility. The ranges may be established by
performance testing supplemented by engineering assessments
and manufacturer's recommendations. However, the performance
test is not required to be conducted over the entire range of
permitted parameter values, because such a requirement could
impose significant technical difficulties and costs on the
source. The EPA believes that a performance test conducted
for a smaller, yet representative, range of operating
conditions can still provide a range for the operating
parameters that ensures proper operation of the control
device. For emission points and control devices where a
performance test is not required (for example, a transfer rack
with a low throughput of HAP-containing liquids), the range
may be established by engineering assessment. The rule has
been clarified to better explain the EPA's intent regarding
how ranges may be established and is now consistent with the
proposal preamble and this response.
In response to commenter A-90-19: IV-D-77, a range of
two standard deviations from the value measured during the
performance test may not be appropriate in all cases.
Instead, each source is required to develop a site-specific
justification based on the available data and other
information. Section 63.103(b)(3) of subpart F requires
testing at "maximum representative operating conditions for
the process," because this would generally be the condition
with the greatest emission potential. The wording includes
"representative" rather than just "maximum," to allow the
source to operate under conditions representative of the range
of normal operation, as opposed to, for example, a design
maximum that is never reached in practice at a particular
source. Section 63.103(b)(3) also specifies that the control
or recovery device may be operated at "maximum or minimum
3-15
-------
representative operating conditions for mon- -red control or
recovery device parameters, whichever result:^ in lower
emission reduction." Again, the control device operating
conditions should be those conditions that are within the
normal operating range that would result in the greatest
emissions potential. For example, a performance test for an
emission point controlled by an incinerator should be
conducted near the minimum temperature end of the normal
operating temperature range, because lower temperatures would
tend to result in lower efficiencies and greater residual
emissions. If the required percent reduction is demonstrated
at the minimum normal incinerator operating temperature, it
can be assumed that the required reduction would also be
achieved at a higher temperature (assuming the residence time
and mixing are not significantly altered). Because of the
diversity of emission points subject to HON and the need to
accommodate site-specific considerations, the HON is written
to allow sources and their implementing agencies to determine
representative test conditions for a particular site and to
establish site-specific parameter ranges.
The provisions allowing requests to monitor alternative
parameters, supported by commenter A-90-19: IV-D-34, have
been retained in the final rule, as explained in section 3.3.
3.2.4 Continuous Emission Monitoring
Comment: Many commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-96; IV-D-117;
IV-F-7.3; IV-F-7.26; IV-F-7.34; IV-F-7.39 and IV-F-12 and
IV-D-85 and IV-K-1; IV-F-7.44; IV-G-13; IV-G-18; IV-K-17;
IV-K-67) requested that CEM's be included in the HON rule.
A number of these commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-96;
IV-F-1.5; IV-F-7.6; IV-F-7.:>; IV-F-7.39 and IV-F-12 and
IV-D-85; IV-F-7.44) asserted that the HON monitoring
requirements are inadequate because they indicate whether or
not control equipment is operating properly instead of
monitoring the actual emissions levels.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-120) maintained that
the proposed monitoring and testing provisions are too lax and
do not use state-of-the-art technology. The commenter
3-16
-------
(A-90-19: IV-D-120) included vendor information about one
type of continuous emission monitor manufactured by Fourier
Transform Infrared Technology used to monitor ambient air.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-13) provided a journal
article supporting the use of continuous emission monitoring.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) asserted that in order
to adequately check compliance with percent reduction
requirements, inlet and outlet concentrations of speciated
HAP's must be monitored using CEM's whenever feasible. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) added that speciated data is
needed to ensure that the percent reductions are achieved for
all pollutants, to protect the public right to know, and to
assess the seriousness of a violation. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-85) argued that, if monitoring does not
generate actual emission data, some violations may not be
detected; plants will be able to avoid enforcement and "drag
out" cases in court by claiming that violations are trivial.
The commenter concluded that these factors provide a
disincentive to invest in proper application, operation, and
maintenance of control devices and will lead to greater
emissions.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.42) requested that the
final HON rule require monitoring of all toxic emissions with
no exemptions allowed. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.10
and IV-F-9) advocated requiring every emission point to be
equipped with a monitoring device. Another commenter
(A-90-19: IV-F-7.35) requested that a monitoring program be
established to measure the amount of chemicals each industry
releases into the atmosphere. Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-117; IV-F-7.34) recommended that ambient air monitors be
used to record fugitive emissions. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-85) said that the EPA should require companies in
communities with large numbers of plants to establish
community ambient monitoring programs.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) recommended that the
HON rule require additional continuous monitoring of total
organic carbon and/or periodic compliance monitoring in a
3-17
-------
quality control program to make sure control devices are able
to meet the requirements considering the various emission
matrixes which may be present. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-96) stated that actual monitoring of emissions is
essential in light of associated public health risks. Another
commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.9) favored monitoring requirements
strong enough to protect workers at the plant sites.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) interpreted the Act as
not requiring CEM's if alternative methods are available.
Response; The commenters raise three general points:
(1) that they believe CEM's are necessary to determine
compliance with the standards, (2) that they believe CEM's are
available and could feasibly be used to measure HAP emissions,
and (3) that they believe ambient air monitoring should be
required.
In response to the first point, the use of CEM's is not
necessary to demonstrate or assure compliance. The HON, as
NSPS and NESHAP programs have traditionally done, requires a
combination of performance testing and continuous monitoring
of the control device operating parameters instead of
monitoring the actual emission levels. Continuous parameter
monitoring, as previously stated in section 3.2.2 of this
volume, is consistent with section 504(b) of the Act, which
states that "continuous emission monitoring need not be
required if alternative methods are available. . .for
determining compliance."
The EPA reviewed the CEM data submitted by commenters
prior to promulgation. The EPA encourages HON sources to
install CEM's where it is technically and economically
feasible. However, CEM's are not required for the HON.
The HON requires that organic HAP emissions be limited to
the level achievable by application of a reference control
technology to each emission point requiring control. Each
emission point is required to control to the specified percent
reduction (i.e., 98-percent emission reduction of total
organic HAP emissions for process vents), or to apply specific
equipment and work practices (e.g., floating roofs with proper
3-18
-------
seals and fittings for storage vessels). Therefore, the HON
requires a compliance demonstration for each emission point
through use of a control device that meets the equipment
specifications or achieves the required percent total HAP
control demonstrated by a performance test, or in some cases,
a design evaluation. Because they are technology-based, the
standards do not require demonstration of a specific percent
reduction for each individual organic HAP. In addition, the
parameter monitoring approach provides the information needed
to know whether control systems are properly operated and
maintained on a continuous basis. The EPA considers the
parameter monitoring program contained in the HON as providing
clear criteria for what is considered a violation. A
violation of the operating conditions will have occurred if
the daily average value of a monitored parameter is outside
the site-specific ranges for more than the excused number of
excursions. Sources will not be able to "drag out" cases as
asserted by one commenter. These compliance determination
approaches are consistent with statutory requirements as
discussed above and in other responses in this chapter.
In response to the commenter's second point that CEM's
are feasible for all emission points, the EPA asserts that use
of CEM's is not technically feasible or reasonable for all
emission points. There are a number of different types of
CEM's available to sources. The CEM's capable of measuring
emissions of a single compound (i.e., concentration monitors)
have been available for a number of years. These CEM's cost
roughly $20,000 to $40,000 each. The CEM's must be calibrated
daily. However, these CEM's are not useful for many HON
emission points because they measure individual compounds.
Most process vent and wastewater emission points will contain
multiple compounds, and it would be very costly to install,
calibrate, and operate monitors to measure all the HAP's
emitted. In addition, CEM's are not necessarily available for
each of the HAP's in the stream.
The CEM's that use optical remote sensing have recently
been developed, but are not widely available. They cost
3-19
-------
$50,000 to $150,000 each to purchase. These CEM's are capable
of analyzing multiple compounds and some companies are
purchasing them to monitor for accidental releases.
As these examples illustrate, new technology is being
developed daily. However, CEM's are currently not available
for all 112 HAP's regulated by the HON. For instance, one
type of optical remote sensing technology, FTIR, is capable of
measuring for approximately 200 miscellaneous compounds;
however, it is unable to detect a number of HAP's, because
these compounds are not visible in the infrared spectrum.
Furthermore, concentration monitors alone would not
measure emissions effectively because emissions are a function
of both flow and concentration. Therefore, in order to
continuously measure emissions, both continuous concentration
monitors and continuous flow monitors would need to be
installed at each and every control device. The HON specifies
a percent reduction for most control devices. To measure
percent reduction, concentration and flow, monitors would have
to be installed at both the inlet and outlet of every control
device. After installation, periodic calibration,
maintenance, and QA/QC programs would be necessary to ensure
accurate data. Even if it were technically feasible, such
monitoring requirements would be extremely costly relative to
the proposed parameter monitoring approach. The increased
costs would result from the number of monitors (inlet and
outlet) that would need to be installed and the fact that
costs to purchase, calibrate, and maintain CEM's (for
compounds that can be monitored with CEM's) are higher than
costs for temperature monitors or most other operating
parameter monitors. For very limited additional assurance
that emission reductions are achieved, the cost would be very
high. With the selected parameter monitoring approach, the
national costs of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are
estimated to be $70 million per year (or 30 percent of the
~otal annual costs of the rule). Requiring use of CEM's would
significantly increase this cost and result in an unreasonable
burden.
3-20
-------
Another reason OEM's are not feasible for many emission
points is that emissions are not emitted through stacks or
ducts, so measurement of concentration, flow and mass emission
rate is not feasible. An example of this is fugitive
emissions from storage vessels.
The third point made by commenters was the suggestion
that ambient air monitoring be required. The specific
technology mentioned by the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-120)
monitors ambient air. The NESHAP program is technology-based
and requires control of specific emission points; it is not
designed to achieve a specific pre-established ambient air
concentration. The purpose of the HON's monitoring
requirements is to verify that the source is in compliance
with the rule. Ambient air monitoring is not useful for
determining compliance because the HON does not establish an
ambient air target concentration. The EPA must comply with
the PRA in developing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for the HON and other NESHAP. The objectives of
the PRA are to improve the quality of data that are collected
and minimize the burden on the public. The requirements of
the HON are consistent with the PRA. The collection of
additional information that is not necessary to determine
compliance cannot be justified.
In conclusion, the HON is not requiring the use of OEM's.
3.2.5 Excused Excursions
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-29; IV-D-97)
requested clarification of the definition for "excursions"
because §63.7(e)(l) of the draft General Provisions and
§63.152(c)(2)(ii)(B) of the proposed HON each contain
different definitions.
Response; The HON has overridden the definition for
excursion contained in the General Provisions. For the HON,
an excursion has occurred when the source's daily average
falls outside the established ranges or if insufficient
monitoring data are available [as defined in §63.152(c) of
subpart G]. If the occurrence is a malfunction covered in the
source's start-up, shutdown, or malfunction plan and the plan
3-21
-------
has been followed, then it is not an excursion. If the
malfunction is not covered in the plan or the plan is not
followed, then an excursion has occurred. The source is
allowed a few excused excursions. See the next comment and
response for a discussion of the number of allowed excused
excursions.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-21) concurred
with the proposed provisions in §63.152(c)(2)(ii)(A) that
allow three to six excused excursions per semiannual reporting
period for each control device. Several commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-73; IV-D-81) supported the requirements allowing
a number of excused periods before a source is considered to
be in violation. Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-33;
IV-D-56; IV-D-73; IV-D-74) supported the requirement allowing
six excused excursions each semi-annual compliance/reporting
period, as long as: the type of excursions are defined in the
rule (A-90-19: IV-D-56); the number of excursions may be
adjusted after 5 years (A-90-19: IV-D-73) based on experience
at each source; or the number may be adjusted after the life
of the first operating permit (A-90-19: IV-D-33) based on
experience at each source. One of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-33) stated that their incinerator experiences outages on
several days per year, but since they correct each outage
within a few hours, the total on-line time and overall
efficiency is high. Using the assumption that each day there
was an outage would be an excursion, the commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-33) believed six excursions per reporting period to be
appropriate. Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-73; IV-D-74)
supported three days of excused excursions for sources
submitting quarterly reports. One of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-74) said this is necessary because a single excursion may
take more than a day to correct.
Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-57; IV-D-62;
IV-D-69; IV-D-77; IV-D-81; IV-D-112) recommended that sources
be allowed at least 3 percent excused excursions per reporting
period to account for inevitable and/or unanticipated
fluctuations in operating parameters (see the comment in
3-22
-------
section 3.2.2 of this chapter on parameter fluctuations). One
of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-77) added that the
monitoring systems that are required are complex and of
unknown reliability, so excused excursions are important.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81) suggested
that, because: (l) the controls required by the rule are
complex; (2) the technology does not exist to directly measure
their operation in a manner that is both cost-effective and
totally reliable; and (3) unanticipated events can cause
parameter fluctuations, 3 percent excused excursions per
reporting period should be allowed for at least the first
5 years after the compliance date. Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-81) recommended that the EPA promulgate a new
standard in the future if data from sources' periodic reports
show that excursions are occurring more or less frequently.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.39 and IV-F-12 and
IV-D-85) stated that six to twelve excursions per year were
too many. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) stated that any
time parameter ranges are exceeded, a violation of the
standard may have occurred, and therefore, no excursions
should be excused. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) argued
that allowing excused excursions will encourage poor
maintenance of control devices.
Response: The EPA agrees that some excused excursions
are necessary for those unforeseen circumstance that cause
parameter fluctuations. The EPA requested comment in the
proposal preamble on the number of days or percent of
operating time that should be allowed as excused excursions (a
range of 3 to 6 days was proposed), and whether the number of
excused days should decrease over time, after an initial
break-in period. Based on information provided by the
commenters and discussions within the EPA, the provisions were
revised for the final rule. The final provisions allow a
maximum of 6 excused excursions for the first semiannual
reporting period, decreasing by 1 excursion each semiannual
reporting period, down to 1 excused excursion within 3 years.
Thereafter, sources are allowed one excused excursion per
3-23
-------
semiannual reporting period. This system is based on the fact
that, as sources become more familiar with control device
operation and possible causes of fluctuations, they will learn
to prevent or quickly correct these occurrences.
Many of the causes of parameter excursions mentioned by
the commenters could be considered malfunctions. As explained
in §63.6(e)(3) of the General Provisions, if a malfunction is
in a source's malfunction plan and the source follows that
malfunction plan, this does not count as an excursion. If a
source encounters a malfunction that is not included in their
malfunction plan, the malfunction counts as an excursion;
however, the source may amend their malfunction plan so that
similar problems in the future will be considered malfunctions
if they appropriately satisfy the definition of a malfunction
that is contained in the General Provisions in §63.6(e)(3).
Therefore, it is important for the source to include all known
malfunctions in the malfunction plan, and amend these plans
based on their experiences to reduce the chance that a
malfunction is counted as an excursion. This "phasing down"
from 6 excused excursions to 1 excused excursion after 3 years
will allow for a limited number of circumstances causing
parameter excursions that are not in a source's malfunction
plan.
In response to the commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85), it is
necessary to allow for a few excused excursions to account for
the unforeseen circumstances that can cause parameter
fluctuations. However, because only a few excursions may be
excused, the sources will have to maintain their control and
monitoring devices to be in compliance with the rule.
Comment; Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-21; IV-D-57;
IV-D-72) noted that there will be situations when long delays
are necessary. The commenter cited examples of delays
including difficulty in obtaining parts or scheduling
maintenance, and time-consuming repairs such as replacement of
boiler refractory. For such situations, two commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-21; IV-D-106) encouraged the EPA to take into
consideration that operational difficulties will occur and
3-24
-------
that the length of time for correction and the number of
excused excursions should depend on the type of operation.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-21) requested that the EPA
specify procedures, such as Agency notification or estimation
of uncontrolled emissions, to be followed in the event a delay
longer than 6 days is necessary, and consider these periods
excusable.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-72; IV-D-106) supported a
combination of the second and third options discussed in the
proposal preamble for defining what constitutes a violation.
Under the commenters1 (A-90-19: IV-D-72; IV-D-106) suggested
approach, an excursion would not be a violation if it is
corrected within a reasonable period of time; and a certain
number of short-term excursions that were not corrected would
be excused.
Response; The EPA has decided not to allow extra days of
excused excursions for periods of long delay caused by
difficulty in obtaining parts, scheduling problems, or lengthy
repairs. During periods when a source knows that the repair
or maintenance may take longer than the number of excused
excursion days, the source should shut down the affected unit,
rather than continue to operate in violation. When the source
is unaware how long the delay would take and exceeds the
allowed number of excused excursions, these will still be
considered violations; but the implementing agency may choose
to exercise its enforcement discretion and resolve these
violations without seeking a penalty. The reason that the EPA
chose not to allow additional excused excursions is that it
would cause enforcement difficulties to decide when a delay is
caused in spite of best efforts and when the delay is caused
by less than best efforts. Therefore, all excursions other
than excused ones will be considered violations. As noted in
previous responses, if the delay is caused by a malfunction
and the source follows their malfunction plan, it is not
considered an excursion or a violation.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-56; IV-D-74)
requested clarification of the provisions stating that when a
3-25
-------
source is subject to multiple monitoring requirements or
limitations under the HON, multiple NSPS or NESHAP, or under
State or Federal construction or the operating permit program
rule, that the source is subject to only one potential
violation for an excursion during any single averaging period
or required monitoring period and would be subject to only one
penalty and one enforcement action.
Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-74; IV-D-92) requested
that a single operational occurrence which leads to
simultaneous violations of one or more parameters be treated
only as a single violation, consistent with the Clean Water
Act Enforcement Policy.
Response; For purposes of enforcing the HON, each
emission point can only have one HON-related excursion per
day. An excursion occurs when: (1) the daily average value
of one or more monitored parameters is outside the permitted
range; (2) the period of control device operation is 4 hours
or greater in an operating day and monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data for at least
75 percent of the operating hours; or (3) the period of
control device operation is less than 4 hours in an operating
day and more than one of the hours during the period of
operation does not constitute a valid hour of data. If one
problem causes multiple parameters to be out of range on the
same day for a single emission point, this is considered to be
only one excursion. Furthermore, one control device can have
only one HON-related excursion per day. If multiple emission
points are ducted to one common control device, and the
operating parameters for the control device are outside the
established range, this is considered to be only one
excursion. If the excursion is not an excused excursion, it
would be considered one violation.
When a source violates the section 112 regulatory
requirements and that violation is simultaneously a violation
of another provision (e.g., a violation of the HON and the
title I VOC requirements), then that will be considered by the
EPA as two violations for each day that the violation
3-26
-------
continues. This has been the traditional EPA interpretation
of the statutory language authorizing .the implementing agency
to seek penalties "per day for each violation." The reason
for this is that if, for some reason, the proof of one
violation fails, the evidence for the other violation may
stand the test of trial and the EPA will be able to collect
penalties for the violations. Thus, the EPA seeks penalties
for both violations if there are multiple violations.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) requested
that an excursion that is the result of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction not count toward the excusable excursions,
regardless of whether or not the source is operated consistent
with the start-up, shutdown, malfunction plan. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-74) suggested that provisions be made to allow
for longer periods of excused excursions when a malfunction
occurs that is no fault of the owner.
Response: The HON specifies in §63.152(c)(2)(ii)(C) that
if a monitoring parameter excursion occurs during start-up,
shutdown or malfunction, and the source follows their start-
up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, as required in §63.6(e)(3)
of the General Provisions, then it is not counted as an
excursion. As long as the malfunction plan is followed, the
event will not be considered an excursion, even if it takes
more than 1 day to repair or correct. If an excursion occurs
during start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, and the plan is not
followed, the excursion would count as a violation. If the
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan fails to address an
event that meets the characteristics of a malfunction, the
event will be counted as an excursion; however, the source can
revise the plan to include procedures for addressing similar
future events so that future events will not be excursions.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) argued that,
on their system, if the thermocouple verifying that the flare
pilot flame is lit fails, this should not be viewed as an
excursion. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) argued that
there are three pilot lights at the flare, so even if one were
to go out, the flare would still operate. The commenter
3-27
-------
(A-90-19: IV-D-33) said they usually wait until the next
shutdown, which may be as much as one to two years later, to
fix a failed thermocouple.
Response; The provisions in the process vents, transfer,
and wastewater sections of subpart G have been revised to
require reporting only if all pilot flames to a flare are out.
Records must be kept of periods when each individual
monitoring device or pilot light is not working, but if the
flare has multiple pilot lights, reporting is not required
unless all pilot flames are out.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-85) stated that
use of a daily averaging period for parameter monitoring is
inappropriate and commented that hourly or continuous
compliance should be required. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-85) was concerned that sources could release peak
emissions at night. Other commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-7.35;
IV-K-1) requested that all peak and accidental releases of
chemicals be required to be reported.
Response: The HON provisions are designed to require
installation and proper operation of controls that will meet
the standard. Operating parameters are monitored
continuously. However, daily averages are used for compliance
determination. Parameter values fluctuate over the short term
for many reasons, such as those cited previously by other
commenters. If hourly or shorter periods were used to
determine compliance, either the acceptable ranges would need
to be set wider or a large number of "viola ons" would occur
as a result of very temporary fluctuations. The daily average
balances process variability with the need to determine
continuous compliance.
In regard to commenters1 concerns about peak releases,
the EPA considers the current monitoring requirements adequate
to protect against peak releases of emissions for several
reasons. ^eak releases are not routine in the chemical
ir.-.ustry. The chemical industry has continuous processes, and
it is unlikely that a source could collect emissions and
release them during the night or at one time. For example,
3-28
-------
during periods of operation, process vents and process
wastewater streams have relatively steady emissions that are
unlikely to peak at night or otherwise. Storage vessels and
transfer operation emissions occur during loading and
unloading of trucks and railcars. These activities are more
likely to occur during the day. As a safeguard, the HON
provisions contain adequate requirements for reporting
operating problems. Monitoring parameter excursions and
problems detected during inspections must be reported in the
periodic reports. The General Provisions also require
reporting of malfunctions. Additionally, in the event that an
accidental release occurs, the source will be subject to the
proposed accidental release prevention rule.
3.2.6 Emissions Averaging Monitoring Requirements
Comments on monitoring requirements for sources that use
emissions averaging may be found in section 2.8.2 of BIO
volume 2C, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting.
3.2.7 Other
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-46) favored more
flexible monitoring provisions. Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-72; IV-D-106) suggested a system of monitoring "typical"
emission points instead of every emission point, coupled with
a periodic roving monitoring program similar to that in
subpart H of the HON. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-97)
stated that the EPA has excessively specified continuous
monitoring and that section 504 of the Act, "Permit
Requirements and Conditions," is very specific in not
requiring the level of continuous monitoring specified in the
proposed HON.
Response: The HON rule requires monitoring of all
Group I and some Group 2 emission points to ensure proper
operation and maintenance of the control device. Because
operating problems will be specific to each control device, a
system of monitoring "typical" emission points instead of
every emission point would not be effective in controlling
emissions.
3-29
-------
By the "roving monitoring program" used in subpart H, the
EPA assumes the commenter means periodic leak detection
measurements using Method 21. Under this method, an inspector
periodically walks around the plant using a portable analyzer
to detect leaks by measuring whether organic concentration is
significantly above background levels. This method is not
technically applicable for measuring emissions from most of
the control devices used to control process vent, transfer,
storage, and wastewater emissions, because many of the
emissions regulated under subpart G are emitted from tall
stacks at high temperatures (e.g., from an incinerator or
flare).
The HON requires continuous monitoring of some control
devices. For other emission points and controls, periodic
(e.g., monthly, quarterly, or annual) inspections or
measurements are required. With regards to the comment
comparing the HON to section 504, that section of the Act
states that continuous emission monitoring need not be
required if alternative methods are available. The HON
requires continuous parameter monitoring, not continuous
emission monitoring.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) recommended
that the HON rule allow a procedural demonstration of
attainment and maintenance of control rather than a point-by-
point demonstration.
Response; The commervcer did not provide details of what
they meant by a "procedure demonstration." Even if a source
has written standard operating procedures or computer programs
for monitoring and recording, point-by-point data and reports
would still be necessary to determine compliance.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) stated that
the requirement for keeping records of daily averages of each
monitored parameter in proposed §63.130(a)(2) should instead
be an oprion in place of keeping detailed monitoring records.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) stated that for some
facilities, it may be less burdensome to keep continuous
records than to calculate daily averages.
3-30
-------
Response; Daily averages are required to determine if an
excursion has occurred. However, if the continuous records
for a day show that none of the recorded values are outside
the established range, this can be noted in the records
instead of calculating and recording a daily average. This
reduces the burden of calculation. If some values are outside
the range, then the daily average must be calculated in order
to determine if the data from the entire day results in a
daily excursion. Detailed records must be maintained to
assure that daily averages are calculated correctly.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MONITORING
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-110) requested
provisions that allow for alternative approaches to monitoring
operating parameters, particularly where continuous monitoring
is required. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-110) stated that
the use of alternative approaches would better take into
account technological differences among facilities, and
provide more flexibility among the monitoring requirements.
Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-74; IV-D-81;
IV-D-86; IV-D-98; IV-D-112) commended the EPA for allowing
sources to request approval to monitor alternative operating
parameters. Two of the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32;
IV-D-81) recommended that the provisions for monitoring
alternative operating parameters be streamlined in the final
rule to ensure that it encourages innovation and opportunity
for cost-effective approaches. In contrast, one commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-85) urged the EPA to specify parameters to be
monitored and their ranges, and to require any plant that
seeks to deviate from the specified monitoring parameters to
demonstrate by performance testing that the variation will
produce more, not less, accurate detection of emission
increases and poor equipment function. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-85) was concerned that industry would select
operating parameters that would be met with the least
investment rather than parameters designed to detect
malfunctions in control equipment or indicate control
efficiency.
3-31
-------
Response; As requested by some of the conunenters, the
provisions allowing sources to apply to monitor alternative
operating parameters on a site-specific basis have been
retained in the final rule. In order to monitor a site-
specific parameter, the source must submit a justification
containing the information specified in §63.151(f) with the
Implementation Plan or operating permit application. This
justification includes a demonstration that the parameter
indicates proper operation. Performance test data could be
included as part of the justification, but is not required
because performance testing would not be feasible or necessary
for all potential control devices and parameters. All
alternatives are subject to approval by the implementing
agency. This will ensure that monitored parameters adequately
reflect proper control operation.
The EPA is also retaining the provisions that require a
source to establish site-specific ranges for monitored
parameters. The reasons for this approach are explained in
the proposal preamble and in responses in section 3.2.3 of
this chapter.
In response to commenter IV-D-110, provisions allowing
site-specific requests to use alternative monitoring systems
have been added to the final rule. The rationale and details
are contained in the responses in section 3.3 of this chapter.
Comment: Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-54;
IV-D-77) discussed allowing process safety interlock devices
as an alternative to continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters. Two of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-32; IV-D-81) explained that, for example, a scrubber
controlling transfer operation emissions could be equipped
with a flow meter to monitor the scrubber's operation. An
interlock device can be se to automatically shut down the
transr-r loading pump if t.:a minimum acceptable flow is not
maintained. Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-54;
IV-D-77) requested that interlock devices be allowed in the
rule, and that monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements not be imposed because the operation will
3-32
-------
automatically shut down when the monitoring parameter limit is
reached. One of these commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated
that alarms can be installed on the interlock devices to alert
operators before an excursion occurs so that control can be
regained; and if control is not regained, shut down
automatically occurs.
Response; While the EPA wishes to encourage innovative
technologies such as interlock systems, the EPA has
insufficient information on the variety of designs and
applications of interlock systems to specify alternative
recordkeeping procedures that would be appropriate for all
such systems. Sources wishing to use alternative monitoring
methods, including interlock devices, may apply to do so as
described in the General Provisions §63.8(f).
3.4 PERFORMANCE TESTING
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-87; IV-D-115)
requested that the HON require annual performance tests to
ensure continued compliance. One of the commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-115) stated that there are many cases where monitoring of
process parameters does not accurately indicate control
efficiency.
Response; Sources are required to achieve the specified
emissions reduction, and most equipment must be tested
initially. The continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters is used to determine continued compliance
with the source's operating requirements, and ensures that
controls continue to be properly operated and maintained.
Performance tests, as well as engineering assessments and
manufacturers' recommendations, are used to establish the
site-specific acceptable ranges for the monitored parameters.
Annual tests would be burdensome and would only provide a
"snapshot" of how the equipment is operating at that point in
time. Ongoing parameter monitoring is preferred in
determining continued compliance. For these reasons, annual
performance tests will not be required in the HON rule.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) requested
that provisions be added to the HON rule, perhaps in a new
3-33
-------
§63.103(b)(5), stating that any provisions of subparts F, G,
or H in the proposed rule which require a performance test
should also allow engineering calculations, manufacturers'
specification, or other reasonable and appropriate methods.
The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-36) considered these
alternatives to be less expensive ways to both demonstrate
compliance with the percent emission reduction requirements
and establish operating parameter ranges. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-36) also suggested that performance be
considered to have been demonstrated only within those
conditions or parameter ranges that are reliably supported by
the method used, and the operating permit incorporate those
conditions or parameters as requirements.
Response: The standard requires performance testing to
determine compliance with emission limits where the EPA has
determined testing to be feasible, and allows process
knowledge or calculations only for specific emission points
and control techniques where testing is not feasible. This
approach will provide the best assurance that the emission
limits are met. However, the rule allows use of either a
performance test or analyses to establish the site-specific
parameter ranges for parameters that must be continuously
monitored. The procedures for establishing parameter ranges
are addressed in §§63.114, 63.120(d), 63.127, and 63.143(f).
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-29) stated that
the provisions for conducting performance testing in §63.7(e)
of the draft General Provisions and §63.103 (b)(3) of the
proposed HON are different, and that the HON should be revised
to include only one set of performance test requirements. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-29) also claimed that §63.7(e)
implies that the Administrator will specify the test
conditions, while §63.114(e) of the proposed rule states that
the owner or operator will specify the monitoring conditions
that will be used during testing. Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-D-70; IV-D-99) contended that it is necessary for
performance testing provisions in the General Provisions to be
written such that the clearest and highest level of proof
3-34
-------
possible is obtained during initial performance testing of
each control technology considered by the HON. The commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-70; IV-D-99) also contended that Method 301,
which was mentioned as an alternative means to demonstrate
compliance, must also guarantee this level of proof.
Response; The EPA assumes that the commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-29) is referring to the General Provisions reguiring
performance tests under representative conditions and the HON
reguiring performance tests under maximum capacity conditions.
The reguirements of the General Provisions are only meant to
provide general directions for all NESHAP. Specific
reguirements in each NESHAP may override directions in the
General Provisions. Therefore, the HON performance test
reguirements override the General Provisions performance test
reguirements. This has been clarified in the final HON
provisions. The reader is also referred to the discussion of
overlapping regulations in section 6.6 of this chapter.
The EPA also believes that the commenter may have
misinterpreted the HON regulation. Section 63.114 in the
proposed rule does not address performance test conditions,
but reguires a source to establish operating parameter ranges
for monitoring of the control or recovery device. The EPA
believes that it has written the HON to ensure that an
accurate representation of the operating parameters is
obtained during initial tests.
The EPA would also like to explain that Method 301 is a
guality control/guality assurance procedure used to
demonstrate that an alternative test method gives comparable
results to the specified EPA method. Method 301 does not
address demonstration of compliance.
3.5 ENFORCEMENT
Comment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.5;
IV-F-7.1; IV-F-7.10 and IV-F-9; IV-F-7.22; IV-F-7.33;
IV-F-7.34; IV-F-7.35; IV-G-15) contended that industry does
not comply with existing regulations. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-F-7.45) maintained that chemical plants use a number of
strategies to escape liability, including changing corporate
3-35
-------
names every two years; declaring that long-term diseases are
not work-related; and sounding horns at multiple plants when
an accidental chemical release occurs.
Five commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-43; IV-F-7.5; IV-F-7.14;
IV-F-7.15; IV-F-7.26) expressed concern that regulations are
not being enforced by either State or Federal governments.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.4) expressed concern that
States are too lenient in administering, monitoring, and
enforcing Federal regulations, citing examples such as
allowing temporary exemptions for a plant due to its use of an
innovative technology. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.3)
elaborated that in one State, new industries are being granted
variances for air emissions, and existing industries are being
granted variances for emissions associated with expansions.
Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-7.2; IV-F-7.3; IV-F-7.4;
IV-F-7.7; IV-F-7.8; IV-F-7.26; IV-F-7.34; IV-F-7.38) expressed
concern that Federal, State, or local governments are allowing
increases in emissions.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.15) concluded that a
particular State is not enforcing its own, new air toxics law,
because the penalty amounts assessed by the State declined by
92 percent from 1991 to 1992. Two commenters (A-90-19:
IV-F-7.7; IV-F-7.8) expressed concern about a particular
situation where their State does not intervene when the air
quality of one industrial plant site is negatively impacted by
another nearby chemical plant, even though the State would
intervene if the surrounding community were impacted. One
commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.7) contended that the
aforementioned State's decision is a misinterpretation of the
Act and that the EPA should not give delegated authority to
the State for the HON rule until the State's program is
remedied.
Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-7.1; IV-F-7.10 and
IV-F-9; IV-F-7.22; IV-F-7.26; IV-F-7.27 and IV-F-10;
IV-F-7.35; IV-F-7.39 and IV-F-12; IV-F-7.42; IV-G-15) favored
a HON rule that includes strong, effective enforcement
mechanisms. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-F-7.28) suggested a
3-36
-------
more thorough look at technology options as part of the
implementation, elimination of the loopholes, and enforceable
aspects of the rule. One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-43)
contended that the HON will be unenforceable, and will not be
able to achieve the emissions reductions. Two commenters
(A-90-19: IV-F-7.42) asserted that the HON will only be
effective if it is properly enforced. One commenter (A-90-19:
IV-F-7.15) supported the EPA's establishing a strong
regulation and assuming a role as enforcer for States that are
reluctant to offend powerful special interests. One commenter
(A-90-19: IV-F-7.42) favored prison sentences for plant
managers who break the law.
Response. The EPA agrees that proper enforcement of
NESHAP is essential to ensure that the required emission
reduction is achieved. Every effort has been made to
structure the HON in a way that provides a clear means of
determining whether the standard has been achieved. These
provisions include performance testing, continuous parameter
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
The EPA and the States must work together to ensure
effective enforcement. Under the Act, a State may develop a
program and be delegated authority to enforce NESHAP
(including the HON) under section 112(1). States are also
required to develop operating permit programs. State programs
developed under section 112(1) as well as operating permit
programs must be approved by the EPA before they can go into
effect. -If State 112(1) programs are not submitted or are not
approved, the EPA will be responsible for enforcement of
NESHAP. The EPA will also administer operating permits if a
State does not have an approved operating permit program.
Public comments will be considered during development and EPA
review of State programs, as described below.
Under section 112(1) of the Act, States may develop and
submit to the Administrator for approval a program for the
implementation and enforcement of section 112 standards,
including the HON and other NESHAP. The EPA published draft
guidance for these State programs on November 26, 1993
3-37
-------
(58 PR 62262). When States submit their programs to EPA under
Section 112(1), there must be notice and an opportunity for
public comment. Public comments on the adequacy of specific
State enforcement plans will be welcomed at that time. The
Administrator will review each State program to determine if
it is adequate to enforce the NESHAP program. Under the Act,
the Administrator will disapprove any State program that:
does not contain adequate authorities to ensure compliance by
all source in the State with each applicable standard; does
not have adequate resources to implement the program; has a
schedule that is not sufficiently expeditious; or is not in
compliance with the EPA's guidance.
Under section 502 of the Act, States are required to
develop operating permit programs. The operating permits will
consolidate all air pollution control requirements that apply
to a source into one comprehensive permit, which will simplify
enforcement. States are required to submit operating permit
programs to the Administrator for review. Notice and
opportunity for public comment must be provided when the plan
is submitted, and specific comments on each State's plan will
be welcomed at that time. The EPA may approve or disapprove
and request revisions to a State program. There are also
provisions allowing EPA to review program enforcement and
administration and apply sanctions, if warranted.
To address the commenter's concerns regarding accidental
releases, in the event that an accidental release occurs, the
source will be subject to the proposed accidental release
prevention rule which identifies those substances which are
most likely to cause serious adverse effects that could harm
the public and the environment.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) suggested
that the EPA send a notice of deficiency for perceived
recordkeeping violations before taking any enforcement action.
Response; The EPA has a broad range of enforcement
options available, and the discretion to use whichever type of
enforcement action it determines to be most appropriate in
pursuing a particular violation. Recordkeeping violations may
3-38
-------
be deemed major, minor/ or even criminal, depending on the
circumstances. Such circumstances will therefore dictate
whether the EPA issues an Administrative Penalty Order, a
Notice of Violation/Notice of Deficiency, or a Criminal
Notice. All of these are considered enforcement actions,
whether or not a penalty is assessed.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-90; IV-D-100)
asserted that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the proposed HON rule do not provide a basis
for determining verifiable emission limitations for
compliance, and if necessary, appropriate enforcement of
permit conditions. The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-90;
IV-D-100) stated that there can be difficulty in determining
compliance with emission standards based on parameter
monitoring because excursions are initially violations of a
permit condition and not a violation of an emission standard.
Furthermore, the commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-90; IV-D-100)
stated that it is more difficult to enforce emission standard
violations based on parameter monitoring. The commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-90; IV-D-100) stated that it is imperative
that the EPA specify compliance options that are enforceable.
The commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-90; IV-D-100) maintained that
in title VII, Congress clearly intended for enforcement of
non-compliance with any provision or requirement of the Act by
significantly strengthening enforcement authority to the EPA
and the States, including criminal sanctions and substantive
penalties.
Response; The commenter is correct that it may be
difficult to determine whether an emission limit has been
exceeded based on whether a parameter range is exceeded. It
is also true that if a source operates outside the established
parameter ranges for more than the excused number of
excursions, this is a direct violation of the operating
conditions, but not the emission limit. However, the
implementing agency can take enforcement action against the
source for a violation of the operating conditions.
3-39
-------
Because of the diversity of HAP emission points, the wide
range of flow rates and HAP concentrations, and the general
complexity of HON emission points, it would be difficult to
determine, without testing, whether operating slightly outside
a parameter range indicates that an emission limit has been
violated. The implementing agency may request a performance
test to determine compliance with the emission limit at any
time, including when a source has operated with parameters
outside the established range. If the performance test
reveals that the required emission limit (i.e. process vents
must achieve 98 percent emissions reductions) was exceeded,
then the source has violated the emission limit and is subject
to enforcement actions. The EPA has designed the HON to be an
enforceable standard and will enforce all non-compliance
situations that arise.
The rationale for using parameter monitoring in the HON
is discussed under section 3.2.2 of this chapter.
3.6 START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PLAN
Comment: Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-70; IV-D-99;
IV-D-113) noted that for control of start-up, shutdown,
maintenance emissions, and upsets, the proposed HON refers to
the draft General Provisions which had not yet been proposed.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) suggested that an upset
provision, consistent with the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act enfc ~.snt provisions, be devised to offer protection
from enforcement for circumstances beyond the control of the
owner or operator.
Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-70; IV-D-79; IV-D-99)
requested that the General Provisions provide for effective
control of these types of emissions and suggested routing
upset, start-up, shutdown, and maintenance emissions to an
incinerator, scrubber, or flare meeting 40 CFR 60.18.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-113) supported the site-
specific start-up, shutdown, malfunction plan and encouraged
the EPA to allow changes and modifications to the plan in
order to improve plant performance.
3-40
-------
Two commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-73; IV-D-75) requested that
a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction plan be included in the
HON if provisions are not included in the General Provisions.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-48) recommended that the HON
override the General Provisions requirement to report any
deviation from the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
and that only those deviations resulting in 10 percent more
emissions be reported.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-73) contended that it
would be impossible to foresee and plan for all possible
malfunctions ahead of time in the start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-K-73) requested
that compliance be judged relative to good air pollution
control practices, and not relative to adherence to a plan
that cannot reasonably be articulated in advance.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-69) suggested that at least
10 days of control device downtime specifically for combustion
devices, be allowed annually for start-ups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions.
Response; The General Provisions require a start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan in §63.6(e)(3). The written
plan should be developed by the source, and should describe
procedures for operating and maintaining the source during
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction, and a program
of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air
pollution control equipment. If a malfunction occurs and it
is covered by the source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, and the procedures in the plan are followed, the
occurrence is not counted as an excursion. If the malfunction
is not included in the source's plan, the plan can be revised
to include the event as a malfunction, so that it would not
count as an excursion if it were to happen again.
Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans are described
in the General Provisions. Therefore, they are not described
in the HON. However, §63.100 of subpart F contains a
definition of shutdown that is appropriate for HON, and this
3-41
-------
definition should be considered in determining activities that
should be included in the plan.
Comments on the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
contained in the General Provisions were addressed in the BID
for the General Provisions.
3.7 MISCELLANEOUS COMPLIANCE
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-74) maintained
that there are situations where continuous monitoring, as
defined by the HON, is not appropriate, specifically in batch
process operations which have long periods when no emissions
occur.
Response: Monitoring of controls on batch processes must
occur continuously (every -5 minutes) during all periods of
emissions. During perioc^ when the process and its associated
control device are not in operation, monitoring would not be
necessary. The regulation states that the daily average
parameter values are calculated for the period of operation
during the day. If emissions from a batch process are routed
with other processes to a control device that operates
continuously (i.e., 24 hours a day), then continuous
monitoring of the control device is reguired for the entire
24-hour period.
Comrent: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-81)
requeste that facilities using alternative means of emission
limitation not be required to perform more str:-gent
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, or to be exposed to
excessive delays in approach due to extended schedules for
public hearings, as this would serve as a disincentive for
using innovative control technologies.
One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-98) suggested that
subpart F include specification of the kind of compliance
demonstration required, and the procedure the Administrator
will follow for reviewing requests for alternative means of
emission limitations.
Response; The provisions in subpart F of the HON
regarding alternative means of emission limitation are
consistent with §63.6(g) of the General Provisions. They
3-42
-------
apply only when an owner or operator seeks to use an
alternative to a design, operational, or work practice
standard in subpart G or H. These provisions do not apply if
an owner or operator wishes to use a device other than the
reference technology to meet an emission limit.
The provisions in subpart G for control of Group l
storage vessels are examples of design, operational, and work
practice standards. They require floating roofs with
particular types of seals and fittings, and a specified
inspection schedule, or a closed-vent system ducted to a
95-percent efficient control device. If an owner or operator
who is not using emissions averaging wishes to control a
Group 1 vessel using a unique floating roof design, or to
follow alternative vessel inspection procedures, they would
need to submit to the Administrator information demonstrating
that their alternative means of compliance achieves equivalent
emission reduction. A public hearing and a Federal Register
notice are required in this case by §63.6(g) of the General
Provisions.
It is expected that the alternative means of emission
limitation provisions will be used in very few cases. These
provisions do not apply if a source wishes to use an
alternative device to meet the emission limit. For example,
Group 1 process vent and transfer emission points are required
to achieve 98 percent reduction (unless they are part of an
emissions average). An owner or operator can use any control
device, including a device other than the reference control
technologies mentioned in the rule, to achieve the required
reduction. They would need to follow the process vent or
transfer provisions for conducting a performance test to
demonstrate 98 percent reduction, and include a justification
for the parameter they intend to monitor in the Implementation
Plan or operating permit application. The monitoring
requirements would be decided by the implementing agency or
permitting authority as provided in §63.151 of subpart G.
In response to the commenter's (A-90-19: IV-D-98)
suggestion that more specific provisions regarding alternative
3-43
-------
means of emission limitation be included in subpart F, the EPA
does not consider it possible to foresee what types of
alternatives may be requested. Without knowledge of the
specific alternatives, it is not possible to provide details
on how to demonstrate that the alternative achieves equivalent
emission limitation. The General Provisions address
procedures to be followed by the implementing agency in
considering requests.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-56; IV-D-63)
suggested that variance provisions for special and extenuating
circumstances, such as financial insolvency (A-90-19:
IV-D-63), be included in the HON to provide flexibility in
compliance with the rule.
Response; The HON allows compliance flexibility in a
number of ways. The HON allows a source to apply for a 1-year
compliance extension on a case-by-case basis. The HON also
allows flexibility in control of Group 1 emission points. For
example, process vents may comply by using flares or a variety
of enclosed combustion devices, or by modifying the process or
increasing product recovery to raise the TRE to greater than
1.0. A source may choose the approach that is least costly
for their particular situation. Emissions averaging may also
reduce compliance ccsrs. A source may also apply to use
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting systems.
However, the Act requires that existing sources comply within
3 years (with the possibility of a 1-year case-by-case
compliance extension). Therefore, the HON cannot allow
sources to delay compliance beyond that time period, even in
cases of financial insolvency.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) recommended
including the definition of "first attempt at repair" from
§63.161 in the definition section in §63.111.
Response; The definition of "first attempt at repair"
has been included in the definition section in §63.111, of
subpart G.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) advocated
changing all references to the term "calendar days" in
3-44
-------
subparts F, G, and H to the term "working days" because
"calendar days" does not consider the operating reality at
many facilities where the maintenance staff does not work
24-hour shifts. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) provided a
list of specific references in the proposal that refer to
"calendar days" and stated that changing these references
would alleviate some of the repair burden, such as having to
bring maintenance personnel in on overtime to meet the
standard, and would better match operating realities. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) recommended adding a definition
for "working days" to §§63.101 and 63.161 that states that
"working days shall mean any day on which Federal government
offices are open for normal business. Saturdays, Sundays, and
official Federal holidays are not working days." The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) also stated that a draft of the
General Provisions contains wording referring to the term
"calendar days" and that no such wording is contained in the
General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 and 61.
Response; The General Provisions state that time periods
specified in days must be measured in calendar days, even if
the word "calendar" is absent, unless otherwise specified in
an applicable requirement. The General Provisions also added
identical wording to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. The EPA reviewed
the list of references to "days" that the commenter included
with their comments and determined that the HON allows a
sufficient amount of time for maintenance and repairs.
Generally, the rule allows the source 5 days to attempt
repairs and 15 days to complete repairs. This amount of time
would generally be adequate for repairs, and in most cases
should not place a burden on the facility. In the case of
transfer operations, a source that will not be transferring
within the next 15 days may elect to wait until the next
scheduled transfer operation occurs to complete repairs. The
HON has been revised to specify "calendar" or "operating" when
referring to days to avoid any confusion.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) suggested
including the definition of "operating permit" in §63.101,
3-45
-------
instead of §63.111 where it is currently defined, since the
term is first mentioned in §63.102 of the proposed rule. The
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-33) also recommended including a
reference to 40 CFR part 71 regulations, which would be issued
in the event a State does not develop and obtain approval for
its own 40 CFR part 70 permit program. The commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-33) stated that including such a reference
would prevent the need to revise the HON once a part 71 permit
program is promulgated.
Response; In response to the commenter's request, the
definition of "operating permit" was moved from §63.111,
subpart G, to §63.101, subpart F of the final rule. The
definition was revised to refer to either a part 70 or a
part 71 permit.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) suggested
that the HON contain a "savings clause" stating that once the
HON is promulgated, previously permitted facilities may
petition for adjustment of permit conditions if they are more
stringent than the final regulation.
Response; After the HON is promulgated, all sources
subject to the HON must comply with the HON regulations.
However, construction and operating permits issued to
individual sources may also contain additional requirements.
For example, the same source may be subject to other Federal
regulations, State regulations, or PSD or NSR review. The
content of permits is outside the authority of the HON rule,
so a clause such as the one suggested by the commenter cannot
be added.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-64) requested
that §63.103(d)(2) be clarified to refer to the most stringent
reporting standards applicable. Two commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-64; IV-D-73) requested relief from duplicative
recordkeeping and reporting under multiple subparts of
part 63.
Response; Section 63.103 has been revised for the final
rule and no longer includes the duplicative recordkeeping and
reporting statement contained in the proposal. Instead, a new
3-46
-------
table (table 3) has been included which specifies the
provisions of subpart A that apply and those that do not apply
to owners and operators of sources subject to subparts F, G,
and H. This table is also included in chapter 6 of volume 2D
as table 6-1.
The EPA recognizes that the guidance in the proposed RON
on determining with which requirements to comply when
regulations overlap is confusing. In order to clarify these
requirements, the EPA has listed in §63.110 of the final rule
which provisions owners or operators are required to comply
with when they are subject to existing regulations. The EPA
believes that in most cases the HON contains more stringent
requirements than in other existing regulations. For these
cases, the EPA has decided to override the requirements of the
existing regulations with the requirements of the HON. In
other cases, the EPA has specified which parts of each rule
are still required. In still other cases, the EPA has allowed
for site-specific determination of requirements.
Additional discussion on this topic is contained in
section 6.6.4 of BID volume 2D.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-86) noted that
the reference in proposed §63.151(a)(6) to Clean Air Act
section 112(d) is incorrect, and should refer to
section 112(i)(3)(B).
Response; The commenter is correct and §63.15l(a)(6) of
the final rule has been changed to read:
Pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, an
owner or operator may request an extension allowing
the source up to 1 additional year to comply with
section 112(d) standards.
3-47
-------
-------
4.0 TEST METHODS
4.1 METHOD 18
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
gaseous standards are not currently available for all of the
HAP's. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-37) was not clear on
how to prepare the standard.
Response: The EPA agrees that gaseous standards are not
commercially available for all of the HAP's. However,
section 6.2 of Method 18 allows the option of preparing
gaseous standards either from a higher concentration gas
cylinder or through liquid or gas injection. The method
clearly states the procedure for preparing the standards.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
recovery correction is redundant since regulations take this
into account during the developmental stage.
Response; The EPA agrees that this is true with most
method development. However, Method 18 is a generic gas
chromatography technique allowing the use of four different
sampling techniques and any suitable separation and detection
technique. Since so many options are available for sampling
and analysis, the EPA is seeking to ensure that the proper
engineering judgment is being used in the development of a
sampling and analytical scheme.
Comment; Several commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-87)
stated that facilities should perform the recovery study in
the gas matrix of the source, in order to take matrix effects
into account.
Response: The EPA agrees with this comment and has
modified Method 18 in order to quantify the matrix effects in
the source.
4-1
-------
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-37) suggests that
the EPA intended the gaseous standard concentration to be
within 10 percent of the levels present in the source stream.
Response; The EPA responds that the proposed amendments
clearly stated that the gaseous standard shall be based on the
level of the standard, not on the levels present in the
source. In responding to comments concerning matrix effects,
-*.
the recovery procedure has been amended; current spiking
procedures require standards based on levels found in the
source.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-37) disagrees with
the requirement for efficiency standards which require
applying the recovery correction based on the outlet
concentration.
Response; The EPA concurs with this comment. The
recovery study, since it is currently based on determining
efficiency at the concentrations found in the source, must be
determined each time the method is applied at a source.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-37) wonders what to
do if a certain compound does not meet the recovery criteria
listed in the Method.
Response; Method 18 allows the use of several sampling
and analytical techniques which are commercially available.
If a specified compound does not meet the recovery criteria,
the chosen technique was not appropriate for that compound;
therefore, another sampling and analytical scheme shall be
developed. The EPA emphasizes that this type of developmental
work has always been required in Method 18; this amendment
seeks to clarify the procedures to be used in the development.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-37) suggests that
the EPA should specify that Method 18 applies only for
volatile compounds on the HAP list.
Response; The EPA disagrees that the method is only
applicable to the most volatile compounds. The method allows
the use of adsorbents which are applicable to a wide variety
of compounds, including semi-volatile compounds.
4-2
-------
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) stated that the
matrix of the source gas and the concentration of the
compounds in the matrix tend to vary; this could significantly
alter the recovery rate of the compounds of interest. The
commenter proposed that a matrix spike would be preferable for
the determination of recovery rates and correction factors.
The commenter further stated that blank correction should also
be allowed.
Response: The EPA concurs with this commenter.
Modifications to the proposal have been made in order to take
matrix effects into account. The EPA does not agree that
blank correction be allowed in this case. Procedures to
ensure the proper cleanliness of the sampling and analytical
system should be routine for this and any other method. Part
of the purpose of the recovery study is to point out
contamination problems with the sampling and analytical
system; a contamination problem will manifest itself as a
higher than expected recovery.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-16) maintains that
on tall stacks, it is difficult to introduce a gaseous
standard at the tip of the probe and suggests an alternative
arrangement where the gas would be introduced after the
filter.
Response: The EPA concurs that in some instances,
introducing the gaseous standard at the probe would be
cumbersome. However, injection of the standard after the
filter is not acceptable due to the possibility of leaks
within the filter holder. Therefore, the EPA has modified the
procedure to allow the introduction of standard at the probe
(not necessarily the probe tip) but before the filter.
4.2 METHOD 25D
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-5) requested that
the EPA include a statement explaining the importance of
relative standard deviation (RSD) to the results of the
interlaboratory study.
4-3
-------
Response; The EPA believes that the narrative in the
report and the discussion of the results addresses this
comment.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-5) states that an
overall RSD of 22 percent is unacceptable for determining
compliance with the regulation.
Response: The EPA performed this study in.order to
determine whether the improved glassware design in the method
resulted in better performance among amateur laboratories.
The results of this study show a significant improvement from
the first interlaboratory study. With the addition of quality
control sample analysis requirements, the precision within
each laboratory should improve. The EPA has conducted various
studies on the precision of the method with various waste
matrices, both synthetic and real waste. Most waste types,
including actual waste samples, showed RSDs below 10 percent.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-5) agrees with the
decision not to use Laboratory A data to determine the
between-laboratory variability, but questions the decision to
exclude Laboratory A from the within-laboratory variability
calculations. The same commenter further disagrees with the
procedure for disregarding outliers from the statistical
calculations. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32)
questioned the elimination of any data as outliers.
Response: The EPA followed established statistical
procedures in the analysis of data for this interlaboratory
study. The EPA performed the data analysis for this study
using the same procedures utilized in the first
interlaboratory study. The purpose of this study was to
determine whether modifications in equipment design
contributed to better performance of the method by amateur
laboratories. In order to determine the occurrence of
improved performance, the same statistical procedures
(including the determination of outliers) were utilized in
both studies.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-5) was troubled by
the idea of blank correction in the method; contaminated
4-4
-------
solvents should not be used in any method. Another commenter
(A-90-19: IV-D-32) questioned the logistics of removing the
data of a laboratory which did not run blank samples during
the study.
Response; The EPA chose polyethylene glycol (PEG) as
part of the analytical matrix due to its ability to retain
organic compounds. It is PEG'S affinity for organic compounds
which results in a greater than zero blank response. The
method requires the analysis of blank samples and allows the
option of blank-subtraction up to 10 ppmw, This option is
allowed not due to an inherent impurity in the PEG, but due to
the difficulty in storing cleaned PEG in the laboratory
without it adsorbing impurities from the ambient atmosphere.
The reason this particular laboratory's data were not analyzed
were two-fold: the laboratory did not follow the method, and
it is impossible to know whether they followed the PEG
cleaning procedure correctly since blank analyses were not
done.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-G-5) suggested format
changes to the report, including the data summary tables in
section 5, tables 5.5 and 5.7, and adding the ranges of the
standard deviations.
Response; The EPA does not believe that these changes in
format would enhance the reader's understanding of the report.
The commenter suggested moving summary tables into an
appendix; standard protocol calls for the inclusion of these
tables into the body of the report.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that the
interlaboratory study proved a significant bias in Method 25D
because recoveries of the compounds studied did not match
theoretical values. The commenter questioned the accuracy of
the method.
Response: The EPA developed Method 25D as a screening
method to provide a relative measure of emission potential.
Since a screening method for total volatile organics (VO)
implies no knowledge of the components of the waste, the
detectors used in the method are calibrated with a combination
4-5
-------
of propane and vinylidene chloride. The response factors of
these compounds are used to calculate total VO. Therefore, by
definition, measured values will not match theoretical values
for any one individual compound. The method is a
standardized, precise technique used to provide a relative
measure of the emission potential of waste.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) expressed
concern with the long sample path between the Method 25D oven
and the detectors. The same commenter also expressed concerns
with the difficulty of cleaning the glassware, especially the
coalescing filter.
Response; The method provides explicit instructions for
heating the sample lines, the heating temperature, and
instructions to check for cold spots. With the hundreds of
samples that the EPA has analyzed in the development of the
method, cleaning the glassware has not been a hindrance, in
terms of time or effort. The coalescing filter is present to
remove aerosol formation, but aerosol formation has never been
reported thus. far.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that the
chlorine calibration standard certification of ±10 percent
demonstrated that a standard other than chlorine should be
used for calibration.
Response: The method is designed to measure total carbon
and total chlorine; calibration with another calibration
standard is therefore not an option. The standards obtained
for the study were certified by the manufacturer as
±5 percent, but the EPA contractor analyzed the cylinders to
verify concentration before shipment.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) wondered if the
results of the three experienced laboratories differed
significantly from those of the three inexperienced
laboratories.
Response; Although three of the laboratories in the
second interlaboratory study were the same companies as those
used in the first study, the personnel analyzing the samples
with the method were not the same in any of the participating
4-6
-------
laboratories. Therefore, it is not possible to compare
results of the study based on experience since none of the
participating personnel had previous experience with the
method.
4. 3 METHOD. 304
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) specified
concerns regarding adequate mixing within the aeration tank,
the potential for foaming in the reactor, the possibility of
explosion hazard, the potential for buildup of inhibitory
compounds within the reactor, and the potential for buildup of
biomass on reactor walls and instruments. The same commenter
and another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) further requested
guidance when foaming occurs in the method reactor and not in
the full-scale unit.
Response: Both Methods 304A and 304B require that
aeration gas be set to provide sufficient agitation to keep
the solids in suspension. The methods further state that
defoaming agents may be used in the bioreactor if they are
also used in the full-scale system. Since the bench-top unit
of the methods utilize the biomass and wastewater of the full-
scale unit, the EPA does not foresee a foaming problem
requiring defoaming in the laboratory which is not seen in the
biological treatment unit. The buildup of biomass in the
system should not be a problem during testing because both
methods provide for routine maintenance of the system,
including the various probes. The external clarifier is
*
recommended in the methods because it is easy to maintain.
For safety reasons, the methods recommend that the bench-top
system be placed inside a laboratory hood.
The commenter's concern is that volatilized vapors from
the bioreactor may concentrate in the system and become an
explosion hazard. Proposed Method 304 uses a caustic
scrubbing solution to strip the biodegradation by-products
from the purged bioreactor gases. -To address these concerns,
the final rule has been amended to allow sources to determine
Fbio with a bench top bioreactor that vents a slip stream of
the purged gases rather than scrubbing the by-products of
4-7
-------
biodegradation. The amount of HAP's vented to the atmosphere
are determined by measuring the flow rate of the vented gas
and using Henry's law constants, if known, or direct
measurement if Henry's law constants are not known. For
simplicity, the new venting option has been designated as a
separate method entitled Method 304A, while the scrubbing
technique proposed as Method 304 is now designated
Method 304B. However, there are some restrictions on which
method a source may use. A regulating authority may deny a
source the use of Method 304B on the grounds that they believe
the HAP's of interest may react in the caustic scrubber.
A source does not have to use Method 304A or 304B to
determine Fbio. The final rule is structured so that sources
have a choice of three procedures to determine Ffcio. The
three procedures are described in appendix C of part 63. One
of the choices is to use either Method 304A or 304B (with
certain restrictions). The other two choices are to use
performance data with and without biodegradation and the use
of inlet and outlet concentration measurements. The source
selects the appropriate procedure based on site-specific
information. In addition, sources may use other methods .
instead of 304A and 304B provided they meet the criteria of
Method 301 in appendix A of part 63.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) states that the
regulation does not clearly state under what conditions
proposed Method 304 will be required.
Response; The determination of the faction of HAP's
biodegraded (F^io) is performed initially and whenever
operational changes in the process equipment creating a change
in the wastewater concentration or compound mix occur, or
operational changes occur concerning the biological treatment
unit. The use of Methods 304A and 304B is one of three
options an owner or operator is allowed to use to calculate
Fbio- Tne two additional options use site specific data
obtained from the full scale biological treatment unit. All
three options are discussed in appendix C of part 63,
4-8
-------
"Determination of the Acceptable Level of Organic Destruction
in Biological Treatment Units (Ffcio)".
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) is concerned
that multiple experiments will be required to determine the
appropriate Monod kinetic constants to be utilized in the
WATER? model. The same commenter states that the method is
complex and potentially expensive to complete; costs are
estimated at $750 per analysis. The same commenter also
states that the equipment is not commercially available.
Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) also stated that the
equipment is expensive and labor-intensive to operate.
Response: The EPA disagrees that multiple experiments
will be required. The parameters to be used in the method are
determined by the full scale biological treatment unit. One
set of parameters (those of the full scale biological
treatment unit) are required .to determine the first order rate
constant for each pollutant. The equipment required for the
method is readily available commercially for a relatively low
cost (under $5,000 for the bioreactor components). The EPA is
aware of a facility which custom-machined a bioreactor in its
own shop. The method apparatus, once setup is complete,
requires little operator maintenance; temperature, oxygen
concentration, flow rate, and air circulation rate monitoring
is required three times per day. Analytical costs will vary
based on the compounds present, but many analytical techniques
for water range in the $100-200 range.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) disagrees with
the use of an immersion heater in an oxygen atmosphere.
Response: The immersion heater was used during the
method development with no problems. However, the
specifications for the heater in both Method 304A and 304B
have been revised. The new language states that the heating
system must be capable of maintaining the benchtop bioreactor
at the desired temperature.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) questions the
use of silicone tubing in transporting volatile organic
compounds..
4-9
-------
Response; The EPA agrees that silicone, although ideal
for use in peristaltic pumps, is permeable to some volatile
organic compounds. This tubing is to be used only through the
length of the pump head. The EPA has added wording to the
method to allow for the use of Viton tubing in the pump.
Comment: A coramenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) expresses
concern for the potential of pressure build-up in the reactor,
and the difficulty in controlling dissolved oxygen levels to
the required specifications. The commenter cites the
difficulty the EPA contractor experienced in maintaining the
dissolved oxygen concentration.
Response: The method design allows for control of
pressure and oxygen concentration with the use of a pressure
sensitive relay and a solenoid valve. The difficulties
encountered in maintaining the oxygen concentration to the
desired levels during the first study were addressed by using
oxygen gas cylinders instead of the air cylinders in
subsequent studies.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-77)
questioned the use of low-density polyethylene containers for
wastewater storage.
Response; The EPA chose low-density collapsible
polyethylene to minimize volatilization losses by minimizing
the headspace above the sample during sampling and storage.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) questions the
use of mixed liquor suspended solids concentration control
versus the use of solids retention time control.
Response: The EPA intended for the method to be designed
based on full-scale biological treatment units. The biomass
to be used in the bioreactor is obtained from an existing
full-scale process and thus will be acclimated and will behave
as the full-scale unit in the absence of air emissions. The
purpose of the maintenance schedule, which includes the
determination of suspended solids concentration, is to insure
that the bench-top reactor parameters continue to mimic the
full-scale unit throughout the test.
4-10
-------
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) questions the
requirement to discard tubing once it is blocked, and
questions the required flow rate variability of 5 percent.
The same commenter was confused about the meaning of the term
"targeted conditions."
Response: The maintenance requirements in the method
were based on repeated laboratory experiments during the
development of the method. The tubing, when blocked, was
difficult to clean adequately without the use of solvents.
The flow rate variability requirement was also based on these
experiments and is easily attained with the equipment
specified in the method. The targeted conditions in the
context of the method refers to the parameters of the full-
scale biological treatment unit, on which the method
conditions are set.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) questions the
alternative method of supplying wastewater to the bioreactor
by obtaining feed directly from a full-scale unit, since
concentrations can fluctuate over time in some facilities.
Response: The sampling procedure is presented as an
alternative to the wastewater storage procedure. Units which
expect great variability should develop a sampling plan that
addresses the variability and use the sampling procedures
described in chapter 9 in SW-846. As mentioned in appendix C
of part 63, the feed flow to the benchtop bioreactor shall be
representative of the compound mix and concentration of the
wastewater that will be treated by the full scale biological
treatment unit after the collection and treatment system has
been enclosed as required under the applicable subpart.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) believes that
some compounds may be adsorbed onto the biosolids which exit
the clarifier overflow, thus being1 measured as part of the
effluent concentration.
Response: The EPA has conducted studies on various
classes of compounds and their tendency to adsorb onto
biosolids. The results indicated that this tendency is none
to negligible.
4-11
-------
comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
the analytical requirements in the method were unrealistic in
terms of sample storage time of 8 hours, RSD requirement of
15 percent, the possibility of multiple analytical techniques,
and high sample volumes required. Another commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-77) suggested that inorganic preservative addition and
freezing of the sample would extend the sample storage time
indefinitely.
Response; The analytical requirements in the method are
based on the various studies conducted by the EPA during the
development of the method. The limited storage time is
required in order to limit further degradation of the ample
during storage. The method has been .amended to require
cooling, not freezing, of the samples before analysis; this
procedure was carried out during the EPA studies, but the
requirement was overlooked during the development of the
method. The RSD requirement is well within the specifications
of EPA methods. Although the number of different analytical
techniques used will depend on the waste matrix, the method
does allow the option of developing an analytical technique
for a particular waste matrix. The purge and trap techniques
most commonly used specify 5 to 10 mL of sample.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) suggested two
possible alternatives to the method. Other commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-75; IV-D-77; IV-D-34) suggested that other
appropriate methods exist that measure biorate.
Response; One of the procedures suggested by the
commenter measures the HAP's in the influent and the effluent
of a bench top system, and measures the amount volatilized.
The fraction of the HAP's biodegraded would be determined by a
mass balance. This procedure may involve extensive method
development. .A second suggested procedure is to measure the
HAP's in the influent and effluent from the full scale system,
estimate the fraction removed by sorption and volatilization
with appropriate models, and attribute any other mass lost in
the aeration basin to biodegradation. The EPA considered
these comments and incorporated some of these suggestions into
4-12
-------
the final rule. The final rule is structured so that sources
have a choice of three procedures to determine Ffcio. The
three procedures are described in appendix C of part 63. The
first choice is to use either Method 304A or 304B to determine
Fbio- The second choice is a procedure in which performance
data both with and without biodegradation are used to
determine Ffcio- The third choice is a mass balance approach
using inlet and outlet concentration measurements. The source
selects the appropriate procedure based on site-specific
information. In addition, sources have the option to use
methods in place of 304A and 304B provided the alternatives
meet the criteria of Method 301 in appendix A of part 63.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) suggested that
the method should not be used to suggest operating parameters
of biological treatment units, since biodegradation rates of
compounds are sensitive to environmental conditions.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter. The method
requires that the parameters of the full-scale unit be used to
determine the testing parameters in the benchtop unit. The
purpose of the method is to determine the biodegradation rates
of target compounds by simulating as much as possible the
performance of the full-scale unit.
Comment; Three commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-75;
IV-D-77) stated that the design of the bioreactor specified in
the method is outdated, and that current designs combine the
aeration basin and the clarifier. The specification that the
clarifier not have headspace was also questioned.
Response; The design of the bioreactor specified in the
method evolved during the course of the EPA's studies on the
development of the method. Meeting the target biomass
concentration was facilitated by utilizing the external
clarifier design. The option of utilizing an internal
clarifier has been added to the method. If using an external
clarifier, it is important that no headspace be present since
any headspace monitoring is done at the bioreactor.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-75)
stated that the removal of probes for cleaning will expose the
4-13
-------
sealed bioreactor to the atmosphere, and that equipment
modifications should be allowed in order to permit removal of
probes without breaking the seal.
Response; The method provides procedures to follow if
the system has been exposed to the atmosphere during
maintenance procedures. The method does not specify how the
probes are to be connected to the reactor (other than an air-
tight seal); therefore, a probe connection which allows probe
removal without breaking the seal would be allowed.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) expressed
concern that possible sludge bulking or pinpoint floe would
bias the data.
Response: The EPA designed the method to mirror the
conditions in the full-scale biological treatment unit. The
sludge, wastewater, and parameters all represent the full-
scale system, with the exception that the method reactor will
omit air emissions. The agitation in the reactor is required
in order to keep the solids suspended.
Comment: Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-75; IV-D-77)
questioned the safety and use of pure oxygen cylinders
specified in the method.
Response; The EPA specified pure oxygen instead of air
in the system because pure oxygen was needed during laboratory
studies in order"to maintain the target oxygen concentration
in the system. The method has been modified to allow the use
of air cylinders if, for safety or other reasons, oxygen
cylinders cannot be used and as long as the system maintains
the specified oxygen concentration.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) questioned the
use of 1/4 inch tubing for transferring effluent. The
commenter suggested 1/2 inch tubing instead. The same
commenter disagreed with the degree of detail included in the
equipment specifications, including the wattage of the heater
and the polarographic oxygen probe*
Response: The equipment specifications in the method
resulted from months of method development work by the EPA.
The problems mentioned by the commenter were not encountered
4-14
-------
in these studies. However, the EPA agrees that design
specifications of the bioreactor should be stated as
recommendations rather than requirements whenever appropriate.
Methods 304A and 304B have been revised to accommodate the
commenter's concern.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) expressed
concern that the blower, scrubber, and condenser might induce
evaporative losses. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77)
contended that there was no need to recycle headspace and use
an alkaline trap to capture carbon dioxide if the headspace
was analyzed by gas chromatography.
Response; The bioreactor system in the proposed
Method 304 is designed as an closed, leak-tight system which
measures biorate in absence of air emissions. Evaporative
losses implies that the system is constantly losing compounds
to the air, which is not true since the system described in
proposed Method 304 is closed. This is also true of
Method 304B in the final rule. Method 304A is different and
vents a slipstream of the offgas, but the vented HAP's are
accounted for either mathematically (using known Henry's law
constants) or by direct measurement. The scrubber, described
in Method 304B, removes carbon dioxide, which could kill the
biomass.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) stated that the
true concentration at the effluent should be used instead of
the limit of quantitation, since that would provide a more
accurate biorate.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the
true concentration will result in a more accurate biorate;
there is nothing in the method which discourages the user from
developing a more sensitive analytical technique instead of
using the limit of quantitation. The EPA believes that this
option should be provided since some sources may opt to use
the limit of quantitation instead of developing another
analytical technique if the effect on the biorate is
negligible.
4-15
-------
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) believes that
calibration of analytical instrumentation should be performed
in the actual waste matrix.
Response; The method calls for calibration of the
instrumentation using an aqueous matrix. Since the largest
component in the samples (and usually the largest interferant)
is water, and since preparing accurate standards in wastewater
would be difficult, the EPA believes the method requirements
for calibration are adequate.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) requested
information about the audit sample and its matrix. Another
commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) questioned its necessity.
Response: The EPA routinely includes audit sample
analysis requirements in methods with the qualifier that they
are required if available. Audit samples are not currently
available for this method. Audit sample analysis is routine
practice for laboratories conducting good quality assurance/
quality control procedures.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) stated that it
would be difficult to meet the 15 percent RSD requirement
after 2.5 hydraulic residence times. The same commenter also
questioned the usefulness of hydraulic residence time versus
the actual biokinetics taking place; the method will produce
different rate constants for different hydraulic retention
times even if the kinetics in the two systems are the same.
Response: The method states that the first set of
samples be taken after a minimum of 2.5 hydraulic residence
times. The method also requires the use of acclimated biomass
from a full-scale unit. Therefore, the 15 percent RSD
requirement is reasonable assuming the method requirements
have been followed. The method provides a measure of the rate
constant at the conditions (including hydraulic residence
time), present in the full-scale system. This method is not
meant to be used as a research technique into biokinetics or
to provide optimum operating conditions for a biological
treatment unit; rather, the method seeks to measure the first
4-16
-------
order rate constant for a system already in place in order to
determine the fate of the compounds being fed into the system.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) states that the
pressure of the bioreactor system will drop if oxygen addition
is stopped (when the oxygen concentration is at the target
point).
Response; The method requires that the benchtop
bioreactor system be sealed from the atmosphere and be free of
leaks. A pressure drop as mentioned by the commenter would
indicate a leak in the system and thus would require the
appropriate corrections to restore the sealed system.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75) expressed
concern about the sludge wasting procedure and whether the
restrictions on the target suspended solids concentration
would result in frequent sludge wasting procedures.
Response; The sludge mixture used in the benchtop
bioreactor system is obtained from the full-scale system. The
benchtop reactor therefore requires the maintenance of the
system at initial concentration. The sludge wasting
procedures in the method are present in order to remedy any
problems in keeping the suspended solids concentration at the
target level if needed.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19; IV-D-75) asked that
terms in equation 6-4 be defined.
Response; This comment has been addressed in the method.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that the
wastewater feed be run in batch mode rather than the
continuous flow mode.
Response: The EPA has developed this method as a
standardized procedure to calculate biorates in full-scale
biological treatment units. The continuous flow of wastewater
through the system is designed to measure the steady state
biorate constant of the system. For the few systems which
will not be represented by the standardized method, the EPA
has traditionally entertained motions for alternatives to test
method on a case-by-case basis.
4-17
-------
comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) contended that
unacclimated biosludge should be used in the bioreactor in
order to test the ability of the biomass to respond to a new
compound being added to the wastewater treatment system.
Response; The intent of the method is to measure the
kinetics of the full-scale system already in place. The
wastewater being tested in the method is the same wastewater
being fed into the full-scale unit. The purpose of the test
is to measure the biodegradation rates of the compounds
present in the system, not to investigate the ability of the
biomass to adjust to new parameters.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that the
5 cm headspace requirement in the bioreactor should be
restated to minimize headspace.
Response; The intent of the 5 cm requirement was to
minimize headspace; the method wording has been changed to
clarify this statement.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) believes that
pH monitoring of the bioreactor should be included in the
method, as well as requiring the determination of suspended
solids twice, not once, per day.
Response; The EPA concurs with this commenter for
sources which normally monitor the pH of the biological
treatment unit; this change has been addressed in the method.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) believes that
sampling the aeration basin contents would be more
representative than sampling the clarifier contents.
Response: The method is designed for sampling at the
inlet to the bioreactor and the outlet of the reactor; this
type of sampling allows the most representative measure of
degradation through the system.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) cited the need
for more frequent sampling (once per hour) or less frequent
sampling (once per 120 hours) than the method's requirements.
Response; The sampling requirements in the method state
that after 2.5 hydraulic residence times, six sets of samples
must be obtained at least 8 hours apart. Less frequent
4-18
-------
sampling is acceptable according to the requirements of the
method. More frequent sampling is unnecessary since fast
biodegradation will result in low effluent concentrations.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) stated that
modeling would not be needed if mass balance data from live
and killed runs were used.
Response; The commenter is correct, if mass balance data
that represents or characterizes operation of a bioreactor
unit both with and without biodegradation are used, modeling
is not needed. Appendix C of part 63 offers this procedure as
an option to determine the fraction biodegraded. The
commenter should be aware that using this method is acceptable
as long as it is representative of the system after the
collection and treatment system has been enclosed as required
under the applicable subpart.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) encountered
several problems when conducting the method in the laboratory:
problems with operating conditions, incomplete degradation of
"readily degradable" compounds, lack of biomass growth, growth
of a'fungus-like material.
Response; The parameters to be used in the benchtop
reactor of the method are those of the full-scale system, with
the exception of.removal of air emissions. If a compound was
degraded only partially in the method, this points to an
illusion of biodegradation in the full-scale system where air
emissions were a significant factor.. Since the method seeks
to duplicate the conditions in the full-scale system, the
problems mentioned by the commenter seem to point to problems
in achieving the correct parameters within the target ranges
(lack of biomass growth is such an indicator).
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-34) said the
columns from tables 14b, 15a, 15b, and 16 requesting a range
of VOHAP values is not defined and should not be required to
be submitted.
Response: The column in the tables mentioned by the
commenter requesting the source to submit the range of VOHAP
4-19
-------
values has been deleted. The source only has to provide the
average VOHAP value.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-F-1.2; IV-F-4)
expressed concern that proposed Method 304 may only be used to
determine one (K^) of the two constants needed in the WATER?
model (KI and Kmax) and is therefore not adequate.
Response; The use of Water? with biorates measured by
either EPA Methods 304A or 304B does not require the use of
two Monod parameters to extrapolate the results of the biorate
measurements to different full-scale conditions. Since the
bench top test method conditions are required to be identical
to the full-scale system conditions, no extrapolation should
be needed. The use of a one parameter model (K^ from EPA
Methods 304A or 304B; Kmax set at a very high value, 1000)
provides some limited extrapolation capability for the
situation where the full-scale conditions are not identical to
the test method conditions. For further information on the
constants refer to "A Technical Note on Biological Rate
Constants," to E. Manning, EPA, from C. Allen, RTI, dated
February 1, 1994.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
the regulation should be clarified to state that for new
treatment systems, an engineering estimate of the design
hydraulic retention time should be used when conducting either
Method 304A or 304B when the full-scale system is not in
operation.
Response: The Method 304 benchtop reactor shall be run
using the parameters of the full-scale system as it would be
operated when in compliance with the rule. However, for new
sources that start up within nine months of promulgation, the
source can determine KI by comparing several methods and
selecting- the average result to use as the KI input.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
the EPA needs to clearly define "audit samples" and
"compliance tests" in the method. The commenter (A-90-19:
IV-D-32) stated that it is not clear if audit samples are to
4-20
-------
be analyzed before or at the same time that the actual samples
are analyzed. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
it is not clear where audit samples are obtained or what type
of compliance test is required.
Response: The audit requirement in the method
(section 2.3) clearly states that audit samples shall be
analyzed when available. A telephone number is provided in
order to determine audit availability. When performing this
method to demonstrate compliance with an applicable
regulation, an audit sample will be provided, if available,
along with the appropriate instructions for analysis.
Comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated the
difficulty in maintaining three pumps/blowers at constant,
closely controlled feed rates.
Response; The flow rate settings for the feed pumps are
set at the startup of the test. The purpose for the
continuous monitoring of the flow rates is to insure that
conditions are maintained at the correct settings throughout
the testing period. The EPA did not encounter difficulty in
maintaining the system at the correct settings during its
months of continuous operation of the bioreactor system.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) stated that
full-scale systems have varying dissolved oxygen
concentrations and varying temperatures; both of these
parameters require constant setpoints in the method.
Response: The purpose of Methods 304A and 304B is to
show the full scale biological treatment unit will meet the
95-percent treatment option or the required mass removal, as
it will be operated on a daily basis. If the biological
treatment unit is operated at a non-steady state (for example,
varying DO and temperature), the EPA believes this will
adversely affect the biodegradation rate. If the variation in
operating parameters is due for example to seasonal changes or
process changes, the facility can conduct the test method
(either Method 304A or 304B) at these different parameters and
show the system is achieving the acceptable level of control
as required by the regulation. The facility would be making
4-21
-------
multiple runs of the test method to establish an acceptable
operating range for its biological treatment unit.
4.4 METHOD 305
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-23: IV-D-20; A-90-19:
IV-D-77) stated that some compounds would condense out in the
cold trap, thus not meeting the recovery criteria in the
method. The commenter also stated that the system design
might keep the spiked sample from volatilizing.
Response; The intent of the cold trap (which is
optional) is to remove moisture before it reaches the
adsorbent cartridges. Analyzing the cold trap contents should
be part of the analytical technique if water soluble compounds
are present in the sample. As to the spike sample, a gaseous
standard is allowed for the recovery study.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-23: IV-D-20; A-90-19:
IV-D-87) suggested that the EPA publish a list of recoveries
for each target pollutant on the HON list.
Response; The recovery for any one compound will depend
on the method of analysis as well as the other pollutants
present in the waste which may act as interferants. The EPA
will, however, publish a list of suggested sampling and
analytical techniques based on the EPA's own laboratory
studies and the published literature. This list, however,
will only be a starting point in choosing the appropriate
technique. Recovery studies will still be required.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-92)
suggested that the elevated purge temperature and purge time
do not represent real world conditions. The same commenters
(A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-92) suggested that other water
methods or headspace measurement method would be acceptable
alternatives. A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) noted that the
equipment required for the method is not currently
commercially available. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87)
questioned the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) as part of the
purge matrix, since organics are more soluble in PEG and would
be less likely to be purged out of the sample.
4-22
-------
Response; The EPA developed this method to provide a
relative measure of the emission potential of waste. This
method is a definitive, standardized procedure for determining
the potential of organics in a waste to be released from the
waste. The method does not attempt to estimate real world
conditions as the commenter suggest. The method is used to
determine which waste streams would be controlled, the effect
of which has been estimated through the use of emission models
which reflect real world conditions. The regulation allows
the source the option of direct measurements of regulated
pollutants in the waste with a validated method, and then
correcting the results with the published Fm values. The
equipment required to assemble and perform the method is
commercially available; in fact, several laboratories
currently perform Method 25D, the screening method much like
Method 305.
Comment; One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) had concerns
with the adsorbent tube sampling procedure suggested in the
method: the need to do multiple purge sequences if more than
one type of adsorbent is needed, the high purge volume
required in the method overloading the adsorbent, inability to
use thermal desorption at the regulatory limit due to high
concentrations, and the possibility of non-HAP's masking the
presence of HAP's.
Response; If more than one adsorbent is needed for a
particular waste, the method allows the use of multiple
adsorbents placed in concurrent series. The method also
allows the use of a slipstream of the sample gas, thereby
allowing a smaller mass of the pollutant to be sampled and
analyzed. Therefore, if a high concentration of the target
pollutant is expected, sampling only a portion of the 6 L/min
of purge gas will discourage breakthrough of the pollutant.
The wide variety of adsorbents and analytical techniques
allowed in the method will allow the source to choose
techniques that will provide good separation and
quantification of high concentration non-HAP's from the
targeted compounds.
4-23
-------
comment: One commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) states that
two correction factors, one for trapping efficiency and one
for desorption/analytical efficiency, are stated or implied in
the method; this would result in the sample being corrected
twice.
Response; The recovery efficiency study and the
subsequent calculated correction factor in the method result
in one correction factor which is then used to correct for
bias in the sampling, desorption, and analysis steps. Two
correction factors are not needed, and therefore, are not
required in the method.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) noted that the
50 to 130 percent recovery efficiency criteria was not as
stringent as other methods and seemed arbitrary.
Response; The EPA concurs with this commenter. The
criteria should be 70 to 130 percent. This was a
typographical error. The 70 to 130 percent acceptance
criteria represents the maximum bias that the EPA would accept
when developing a method for a new pollutant.
• Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-32) disagreed with
the requirement that the response factors fall within
5 percent of the mean of the three response factors determined
at separate concentrations (for the calibration procedure),
since this is too stringent a requirement and will require too
much time to perform.
Response; The EPA disagrees that this requirement for
instrument linearity is excessively stringent. Current
analytical techniques routinely meet much more stringent
linearity criteria. It is important that the analytical
instrumentation demonstrate linearity er the dynamic range
of the sample concentration. Most analytical techniques
require that a percentage of each day be spent on calibration
of the instrument.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) wondered why
the EPA had not proposed the use of one of the EPA 600 series
of water methods instead of Method 305, especially since no
validation data are available for Method 305. The commenter
4-24
-------
further noted that since the analytical portion of this method
was based on Method 18, trace amounts of pollutants would not
be quantified with this method. The commenter also noted that
the purging procedure may not be appropriate for some of the
regulated compounds. Another commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-75)
suggested the use of direct inject gas chromatography
techniques as a more cost-effective alternative to the
proposed method. A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) suggested
the use of a distillation or strippability method as a
replacement to Method 305.
Response: The EPA has developed this method as a
definitive measurement of emission potential of waste. Direct
measurement of the pollutants in water is allowed in the rule,
after appropriate validation of the method according to
Method 301, but the results will then have to be corrected
with the corresponding Fm value. The commenter's term
validation implies that the results from Method 305 would be
compared to other water methods. This would not be possible
since Method 305 is a relative measure of the emission
potential of waste, and no other methods seek to define it.
The method is not based solely on Method 18. Adsorbents
suggested in the method are established methods for
concentrating the sample. The detection limits of these
techniques are well below the proposed standard.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-87) noted that some
compounds are not amenable to gas chromatographic analysis,
and some adsorbents cannot be thermally desorbed and trapped
efficiently. The same commenter stated that it would be
difficult to analyze all the compounds in some samples with
one analytical technique.
Response; The EPA structured the analytical portion of
the method to be applicable to all types of analytical
techniques, not just gas chromatography. If an adsorbent is
used, solvent desorption is an option in the method, not just
thermal desorption. Finally, there are no restrictions in the
method for the number of analytical techniques to be utilized
per sample. The wide variety of compounds, their various
4-25
-------
chemical and physical properties, preclude the EPA from
listing a single sampling and analysis technique. As long as
acceptable recovery efficiency is demonstrated, the sampling
and analytical technique may encompass any of a wide variety
of different techniques currently available.
Comment; Two commenters (A-90-19: IV-D-32; IV-D-77)
asked for guidance on how to handle the contents of the water
knockout trap.
Response; Due to the wide variety of target compounds
(in terms of chemical and physical properties), the EPA did
not specifically require analysis of the water in the knockout
trap. Many compounds are soluble in water, thus requiring
analysis of the trap contents. The analytical technique will
depend on whether the recovery efficiency criteria can be met
without analyzing the water in the knockout trap.
Comment: A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-77) noted that the
method contained no instructions for sorbent and trap
preparation prior to analysis.
Response: The EPA developed this method in order to
provide flexibility to the user in choosing, preparing, and
analyzing the analytical system. Therefore, one sorbent
preparation technique is not adequate for addressing the
dozens of sorbents currently available or under development.
The method requires that the user be knowledgeable about
sorbent sampling techniques in order to be able to meet the
recovery criteria required in the method.
Comment; A commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92) states that no
test data are available to determine if the- test method
results are realistic. The commenter (A-90-19: IV-D-92)
further states that the test method is cumbersome, difficult
and expensive to use, and that test results are difficult to
duplicate.
Response; The EPA developed this method as a relative
measure of the emission potential of waste. This method, as
its screening method counterpart Method 25D, were developed
over a 7-year period with ongoing laboratory and field
studies. The EPA has conducted studies on actual and
4-26
-------
synthetic waste samples with Method 25D (the screening method
counterpart to Method 305) and has found good precision when
analyzing replicate samples. As to the difficulty and expense
of the method, the regulation provides the option of
validating an alternative procedure with Method 301 and
correcting the results with the appropriate fm values.
4-27
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing
EPA-453/R-94-003e
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DAT6
Ch«miC»l Manufacturing Indu«try--Bacltg,roun
Volum* 2E: Comant* on Racordkuping, R«j
7 AUTHORIS)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME Alv
Office of Air Quality PI am
U.S. Environmental Protect.
Research Triangle Park, Noi
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOC
Director, Office of Air Qu
Office of Air and Radiatioi
U.S. Environmental Protect
Research Triangle Park, No
d Tnf"rm-«;i<"1 '°r Unal standards .. .
orting, compliance, and T««t M«thod» 5. PE RF O RMING ORQ ANI ZAT I ON CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
(O ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
ling and Standards
Lon Agency 11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
-th Carolina 27711 68D10117
RESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
ility Planning and Standards
H 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ion Agency EPA/200/04
cth Carolina 27711 *-A/^uu/u4
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A final rule for the regula
pollutants (HAP' a) from chc
manufacturing industry (SOC
sections 112, 114, 116, and
emission standards were prc
(57 FR 62608). Public heax
published in the Federal Re
volume of the background in
presents the agency's respc
test methods.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
Pollution control
SOCMI
Hazardous air pollutant
National impacts
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
it ion of emissions of organic hazardous air
unical processes of the synthetic organic chemical
"MI) is being promulgated under the authority of
1 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The
>posed in the Federal ReqJ.ster on December 31. 1992
•ings were held. A supplemental notice was
Krister on October 15, 1993 (58 FR 53478). This
(formation document summarizes all comments and
inses on recordkeeping, reporting, compliance, and
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution control
19. SECURITY CLASS fTtis Rtporti 21. NO. OF PAGES
159
20. SECURITY CLASS , This pagei 22. PR'CS
UNCLASSIFIED
Form 2220-1 (R«». *~7Tt owevious soiTION is OBSOLETE
------- |