[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55812-55831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27700]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6176-5]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rules; notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
standards to limit emissions from facilities that manufacture
nutritional yeast and are major sources of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions, particularly acetaldehyde. The proposed standards
would carry out section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended November
15, 1990 (the Act), to protect the public health by
[[Page 55813]]
reducing these emissions from new and existing facilities. The Act
requires these sources to achieve an emissions level consistent with
installing and operating maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The proposed standards would eliminate approximately 43 percent of
nationwide HAP emissions from these sources.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 18,
1998.
Public Hearing. Contact us by November 2, 1998 to request to speak
at a public hearing. If we receive one or more requests, we will hold
the hearing at 10:00 a.m. on November 16, 1998. If you wish to speak or
to ask if a hearing will be held, contact the person named under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested it will be
held at our Office of Administration's Auditorium in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
Comments. Send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-97-13, Room M-1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. You may also send comments and data
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. (See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below, for more on file formats and so on.)
Be sure to include the docket number, A-97-13, on your comment.
Docket. Docket No. A-97-13 contains information relevant to the
proposed rule. You can read and copy it between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday (except for Federal holidays), at our Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. Go to Room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor). The docket office may charge a
reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Aston, Policy Planning and
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541-2363; facsimile number (919) 541-
0942; electronic mail address ``[email protected].''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
If your facility manufactures nutritional yeast, which we consider
to be varieties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it may be a ``regulated
entity.'' In addition, the proposed rule would apply to your facility
only if the yeast is made for the purpose of becoming an ingredient in
dough for bread or any other yeast-raised baked product, or for
becoming a nutritional food additive. Regulated categories and entities
include sources listed in the main Standard Industrial Classification
code for them (2099, Food Preparations Not Elsewhere Classified.)
This description is just a guide to entities likely to be regulated
by final action on this proposal. It lists the types of entities we
think may be regulated, but you should examine the applicability
criteria in section II of this preamble and in Sec. 63.2131 of the
proposed rule to determine whether your facility is likely to be
regulated by final action on this proposal. If you have any questions
about whether your facility may need to meet the standards, call the
person named under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
You can get this notice, the proposed regulatory texts, and other
background information in Docket No. A-97-13 by contacting our Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES). Or go to our
web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html'' for electronic
versions of the proposal preamble and regulation, as well as other
information. For assistance in downloading files, call the TTN HELP
line at (919) 541-5384.
If you send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to ``a-and-r-
[email protected],'' be sure they're in an ASCII file and don't
use special characters or encryption. We will also accept comments and
data on diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 or ASCII file format. You
may file comments on the proposed rule online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Identify all comments and data in electronic form
by the docket number (A-97-13). Don't send any confidential business
information through electronic mail.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. What is the subject and purpose of this rule?
II. Does this rule apply to me?
III. What procedures did we follow to develop the proposed rule?
IV. What are the proposed emission standards?
V. How do I show initial compliance with the standard?
VI. What monitoring must I do to show ongoing compliance?
VII. What if I use an add-on control technology to comply with
the standard?
VIII. What notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements must I follow?
IX. What is the basis for selecting the level of the proposed
standards?
X. What is the basis for selecting the format of the proposed
standards?
XI. Why did we select the proposed monitoring requirements?
XII. Why did we select the proposed test methods?
XIII. Why did we select the proposed notification, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements?
XIV. How can I comment on this proposed rule?
XV. What are the administrative requirements for this proposed
rule?
XVI. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?
I. What Is the Subject and Purpose of This Rule?
The Act requires EPA to establish standards to control HAP
emissions from source categories selected under section 112(c) of the
Act. An initial source category list was published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The ``baker's yeast
manufacturing'' source category is under the ``Food and Agriculture''
industry group. To clarify the scope of the rule and distinguish it
from regulation of bakeries, we changed the name of the source category
to ``manufacturing of nutritional yeast.'' Whenever we use ``you'' or
``your'' in this preamble or proposed rule, we mean the owner or
operator of a facility that manufactures nutritional yeast. We have
identified 10 existing facilities in the source category.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from
major sources that manufacture nutritional yeast. Under the Act, a
major source is one with the potential to emit at least 9.1 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year [tpy]) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr
(25 tpy) of combined HAPs. We estimate at least 9 of these facilities
may be major sources and that annual baseline emissions of acetaldehyde
from this source category are 254 tpy. The proposed rule would
eliminate approximately 43 percent of these emissions.
The HAP emitted from the nutritional yeast manufacturing process is
acetaldehyde. The primary acute (short-term) effect of inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde is irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract and, at extremely high concentrations, respiratory
paralysis and death. Data from animal studies suggest that acetaldehyde
may be a potential developmental toxin, and an increased incidence of
nasal tumors in rats and
[[Page 55814]]
laryngeal tumors in hamsters has been observed following inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde. Human health effects data do not currently
exist, but we have classified acetaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard.
On September 14, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a
notice of draft integrated urban air toxics strategy to comply with
section 112(k), 112(c)(3) and section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act. In
that Federal Register document, acetaldehyde is included among the
draft list of HAP that we believe pose the greatest threat to public
health in urban areas, and manufacturing of nutritional yeast is
included on the draft list of source categories for regulation under
section 112(k). See 63 FR 49239, September 14, 1998.
We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to human health
from exposure to acetaldehyde can range from mild to severe. The extent
and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced is
dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain),
(2) the frequency of and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of
exposed individuals (genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and
lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population, and (4)
pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the
environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence.)
Acetaldehyde comprises approximately 18 percent of the total
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from nutritional yeast
manufacturing. We estimate the current nationwide emissions from
nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities to be 1,400 tons per year of
VOC. The proposed emission controls for HAP will reduce non-HAP VOC
emissions as well. The proposed rule would reduce nationwide VOC
emissions by approximately 43 percent, to estimated nationwide
emissions of 800 tons per year VOC. Emissions of VOC have been
associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts.
Volatile organic compound emissions, together with nitrogen oxides,
are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone, or smog.
Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health
impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat
irritation; nausea; and aggravation of existing respiratory disease.
Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.
We do not expect any significant other environmental or energy
impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Actual compliance costs will
depend on each source's existing equipment and the modifications they
make to comply with the standard. According to one estimate, up to half
of existing facilities may face average capital costs of $385,000 and
annual operating costs of $74,000. However, a source's capital costs
could exceed $1.5 million if it has to replace a fermentation vessel to
comply with the proposed standard. The remaining facilities would not
require significant capital expenses, but they would face similar
annual operating costs.
II. Does This Rule Apply to Me?
The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any
nutritional yeast manufacturing facility that is located at a facility
that is a major source of HAP emissions. You would also have to follow
the proposed rule if your facility is a non-major (area) source but
later increases its potential to emit HAP to major source levels.
If your facility is a major source under this regulation, each
fermentation production line dedicated to production of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae (nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast) would be
required to meet the proposed emission limits. A ``fermentation
production line'' means all fermenters exceeding 7,000 gallons capacity
and used in sequence to produce a discrete amount of yeast. We chose
7,000 gallons as the defining capacity cutoff based on industry
information indicating that the larger vessels are used exclusively for
the fermentation stages we propose to regulate. This regulation limits
the definition of ``fermentation production line'' to the collection of
fermenters used in the last three fermentation stages, including the
final batch. Other terms for fermentations include ``stock, first
generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A fermentation
production line does not include flask, pure-culture, or yeasting-tank
fermentation. A fermentation production line excludes all operations
after the last dewatering operation, such as filtration.
The proposed regulation applies to you only if the yeast produced
at your facility is made for the purpose of becoming an ingredient in
dough for bread or any other yeast-raised baked product, or for
becoming a nutritional food additive. The proposed rule does not apply
to the production of:
(1) Specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne, whiskey,
and beer.
(2) Torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic fermentation.
Section IV.B of this preamble discusses why we propose exempting
specialty yeasts and Torula yeast.
III. What Procedures Did We Follow To Develop the Proposed Rule?
A. Source of Authority for Standards Development
Section 112(c) of the Act directs us to develop a list of all
categories of major sources, plus appropriate area sources, that emit
one or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b). Nutritional
yeast manufacturing (formerly baker's yeast manufacturing) is a listed
source category because of its acetaldehyde emissions. Section 112
further directs us to impose technology-based standards on sources
emitting HAP and allows us to revise these technology-based standards
later to address risk remaining even with these emission limits.
B. Criteria for Developing Standards
We develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) to control HAP emissions from new and existing sources
according to section 112 of the Act. Section 112(d) of the Act requires
the standards to reduce as much HAP emissions as achievable,
considering the cost of achieving these reductions, effects on health
or environment (other than air), and energy requirements.
A NESHAP may be based on measures, which: (1) reduce the volume or
eliminate emissions of such pollutants by changing processes,
substituting materials, or other modifications, (2) enclose systems or
processes to eliminate emissions, (3) collect, capture, or treat such
pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point, (4) are design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards (including requirements for training or
certifying operators) as provided in section 112(h), or (5) combine
these approaches (section 112(d)(2) of the Act).
To develop a NESHAP, we collect information about the industry,
including characteristics of emission sources, control technologies,
data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled facilities, and
emissions control costs and effects on energy use and the environment.
Our information is provided by the sources, their State or local
agencies, or it may be collected by us directly. We use this
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
Although NESHAP typically contain numerical limits on emissions, we
may need to use other approaches. For example, technological and
economic limits may make measuring emissions
[[Page 55815]]
from a source impossible, or at least impracticable. Section 112(h) of
the Act authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard--or a combination of these--
whenever we can't prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
C. Determining the MACT Floor
After we identify the specific categories of major sources to
regulate under section 112, we must set MACT standards for each of
them. Section 112 requires us to use a minimum statutory baseline (
``floor'') for standards. For new sources, the MACT standards for a
source category or subcategory must be at least as stringent as the
emission control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source, as determined by the EPA Administrator (see section 112(d)(3)
of the Act). The standards for existing sources can be less stringent
than standards for new sources. But, for categories with fewer than 30
sources, the MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the
average emission limit achieved by the best performing 5 sources
(section 112(d)(3) of the Act).
D. Selecting MACT
Section 112(d)(2) says we must establish standards that require the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP ``that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable.'' These
standards must be no less stringent than the new and existing source
MACT floors. We may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
sources within a category or subcategory (section 112(d)(1)). For
example, we could establish two classes of sources within a category or
subcategory based on size, and set a different emissions standard for
each class, provided both standards are at least as stringent as the
MACT floor for that class of sources.
Using the MACT floor as a starting point, we analyze information
about the industry to develop model plant populations and project
national effects, including HAP emissions reduction levels and
compliance costs, as well as secondary energy effects. Then we evaluate
various alternatives to select the most appropriate MACT level.
The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor,
but if so, it must be technically and economically achievable. We try
to reduce emissions as much as possible without unreasonable economic,
environmental, or energy impacts (section 112(d)(2)). Regulatory
alternatives and decisions may differ for new and existing sources
because of different MACT floors and the range of beyond-the-floor
control options.
Having selected a regulatory alternative, we translate it into a
proposed regulation, which typically includes sections on
applicability, standards, testing, showing compliance, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation
explains our proposed decision. We invite the public to comment on the
proposed regulation during the public comment period, evaluate public
comments and other information received after proposal, reach a final
decision, and then publish the final standard.
E. History of the NESHAP for Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing
We developed the proposed rule in cooperation with Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources and Maryland's Department of
Environment. When we started gathering information, these two States
had recently developed federally enforceable rules for controlling VOC
emissions from this source category. The VOC rules were based on
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and we believe they
represent the most stringent control of VOC (and HAP) in the U.S. for
this industry.
Our working relationship, called MACT Partnerships, involves
States, industry, and environmental organizations and depends on the
mutual interests of all major stakeholders in the air toxics program.
We asked for public comments on these partnerships by notice in the
Federal Register on March 29, 1995 (60 FR 16088).
Through MACT partnerships, each MACT standard involves two phases.
In the first phase, we develop a ``presumptive MACT,'' which isn't an
emission standard. Instead, it states what is known about potential
MACT and provides information on how to develop the emission standard.
During the second phase, we develop a formal MACT standard for the
source category, propose it, and promulgate it.
To develop the ``presumptive MACT,'' we first met with State and
local agencies, (the presumptive MACT meeting), and then consulted with
industry. In the presumptive MACT meeting, we reviewed available
information with the States to estimate presumptive MACT. This meeting
took place on July 20, 1994 at Research Triangle Park, NC (RTP), and we
extended it by conference call with other affected agencies on August
23, 1994. We based the presumptive MACT largely on three sources: (1)
information Wisconsin and Maryland State environmental agencies
collected as they developed VOC RACT standards, (2) our Control
Technology Center's guidance document, ``Assessment of VOC Emissions
and their Control from Baker's Yeast Manufacturing Facilities,'' and
(3) information we collected from State and local agencies and
manufacturers. The summary of the July 20, 1994 meeting, which is
available in the project docket, explains how we developed the
presumptive MACT.
This draft presumptive MACT and summary were then presented at a
meeting in RTP on September 22, 1994. The meeting's purpose was to get
stakeholders' comments on the selected presumptive MACT. The summary of
the September 22, 1994 meeting, which is available in the project
docket, outlines the reactions and concerns stakeholders expressed at
the meeting. Our presumptive MACT partner, Wisconsin, prepared a
technical support document (also available in the project docket) for
presumptive MACT.
The presumptive MACT presented in 1994 contained the following
major elements: (1) suggested MACT floor for existing sources set as an
acetaldehyde emission limit of 0.7 pounds per ton of liquid yeast
produced (lb/ton LY); (2) suggested MACT floor for new sources set as
an acetaldehyde emission limit of 0.2 lb/ton LY; (3) anticipated
control of area and major sources; and (4) anticipated control of
wastewater emissions resulting from the addition of add-on control
technologies at some sources.
Following is a summary of the major comments made at the
stakeholder meeting: (1) Some companies wanted to monitor their
acetaldehyde emissions to verify the assumptions about their ability to
comply with the standard and to verify that emissions from dry yeasts
are comparable to cream yeast emissions; (2) Stakeholders asked for
clarification that the new source standard would apply to complete new
production lines, and that the existing source standard would apply to
new units added to existing lines; (3) Stakeholders wanted to be kept
informed about further development on how MACT would apply to
wastewater emissions; (4) Stakeholders wanted exemptions for small area
sources based on site-specific risk evaluations; (5) Stakeholders
wanted an exemption for small quantity production of specialty yeasts;
and (6) Stakeholders wanted flexibility in monitoring requirements
[[Page 55816]]
and greater certainty over what is required to establish site specific
operating parameters.
After we developed the presumptive MACT, we consulted with the
stakeholders, several of whom provided more data and analysis to help
evaluate the standard's effects and ensure our requirements for
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping are practical. We also did
tests at two facilities to validate test methods considered for the
MACT standard and to get more emissions data. Beginning in June of
1998, we held additional stakeholder meetings in RTP, NC and by
teleconference, to which we invited representatives from the industry,
States, and other stakeholders. During these meetings, we reviewed the
findings from the presumptive MACT process, summarized our more recent
testing results, described our intentions for proposing the MACT
standard, and solicited input from the stakeholders. During the course
of these meetings and teleconferences, representatives from the States
and industry were given the opportunity to provide a great deal of
input, and to submit supporting technical information, to assist us in
the development of this proposed rulemaking. The rulemaking docket
includes minutes from the stakeholder meetings and copies of written
information that was provided by the States and industry
representatives. Based on our review of the information used to develop
the presumptive MACT and the additional information we collected since
then, we've determined the MACT floor and selected MACT as described in
this preamble. As discussed in the following section, we are co-
proposing two MACT standards.
IV. What Are the Proposed Emission Standards?
With this notice, we are co-proposing two sets of emission limits
and associated requirements. One set, which we will refer to within
this preamble as the ``RACT standard,'' relies on the concentration-
based model used in Wisconsin's and Maryland's RACT rules; this is
designated as ``Option 1'' in the proposed regulatory text. The second
set, which we will refer to in this preamble as the ``PMACT standard,''
relies on a production-based format, which is the same format
considered in the 1994 presumptive MACT described in section III.E of
this preamble; this is designated as ``Option 2'' in the proposed
regulatory text. Both of the co-proposed regulatory options are printed
as proposed standard following this preamble, and both are designated
as subpart CCCC, Secs. 63.2130 through 63.2229. In submitting comments,
please specify whether the comment pertains to one or both options for
the co-proposed standards. We will further evaluate these co-proposed
standards based on our review of public comments and other information
we may receive. The final rule will reflect either one of the co-
proposed standards, a combination of the co-proposed standards, or a
different approach altogether. We are accepting public comments on the
co-proposed alternatives as well as on any other alternatives.
In addition to the standards that are specific to subpart CCCC, the
40 CFR part 63 General Provisions also would apply to you as outlined
in Table 3 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify
procedures and criteria we use to implement all NESHAP promulgated
under the amended Act. The General Provisions contain administrative
procedures, preconstruction review procedures, and procedures for
conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications,
recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The
subpart CCCC proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General
Provisions to highlight key sections that we believe will be of
particular interest to you. However, unless specifically overridden in
Table 3 of the rule, which establishes the applicability of the General
Provisions to the subpart, you should assume that all of the applicable
General Provisions requirements would apply to you.
A. What Are the Emission Limits?
RACT Standard. The proposed RACT standard would limit the allowable
VOC concentration per fermentation stage during a single fermentation
batch from exceeding the following levels: (1) the last fermentation
stage (trade) must have emissions of VOC less than or equal to 150
parts per million (ppm), (2) the second-to-last stage (first
generation) must have emissions of VOC less than or equal to 225 ppm,
and (3) the third-to-last stage (stock) must have emissions of VOC less
than or equal to 450 ppm. These limits would apply to new and existing
sources and are equal to the existing RACT limits, where VOC is
expressed as ethanol. (The State-implemented RACT standards are
expressed as propane.)
Our proposed RACT standard includes alternate emission limits for
each fermentation stage based on an equivalent concentration of
acetaldehyde. You can comply with either the emission limit for VOC or
the emission limit for acetaldehyde. Prior to your initial compliance
demonstration, you would choose one of these two emission limit
options. In your initial compliance certification, you would notify the
Administrator of your choice, and thereafter you would monitor and
report compliance results accordingly. The acetaldehyde monitoring
limits are 18 percent of the VOC limits. We chose 18 percent because it
is the average percentage of acetaldehyde in total VOC emissions at
existing facilities in our MACT floor data base. For the last
fermentation stage, the maximum allowable acetaldehyde concentration is
27 ppm. For the second-to-last fermentation stage, the maximum
allowable acetaldehyde concentration is 41 ppm. For the third-to-last
fermentation stage, the maximum allowable acetaldehyde concentration is
81 ppm.
The format of the State-implemented RACT rules is that the emission
limits are never to be exceeded. Sources subject to rules of this
format must design their control systems to achieve the emissions
standard at all times, considering there are fluctuations in
manufacturing processes. If the system is always in compliance, over
time, the control system results in emission reductions greater than
the standard requires. We are taking comment on whether the proposed
emission limits should be more stringent, so that they more closely
reflect the actual performance of facilities complying with State-
implemented RACT standards.
Besides establishing concentration-based limits on emissions, the
proposed RACT standard would require you to cap the flow rate for every
fermenter subject to the standard. This air flow limit is based on the
fermenter exhaust's average flow rate for the last 12 months. For
fermenters built after October 19, 1998, you must cap the flow rate at
the maximum flow rate per fermenter volume that our written guidance
specifies. We plan to develop this guidance before publishing the final
standard based on our survey of fermenter-to-air flow volumes. See
section X.B for discussion on the need for a flow rate cap.
PMACT Standard. The proposed PMACT standard would limit VOC
emissions from each existing fermentation production line to 9.4
lb/ton LY each calendar month. The proposed PMACT standard would limit
VOC emissions from each new fermentation production line to 7.2
lb/ton LY each calendar month. Existing lines are those operating on
the date this preamble is published. New fermentation production lines
are those
[[Page 55817]]
you begin constructing or reconstructing after this date.
As with the RACT standard, you may choose to monitor acetaldehyde
directly and show compliance with an equivalent limit. The acetaldehyde
emission limits are 18 percent of the VOC limits. For existing sources,
the equivalent acetaldehyde limit is 1.7
lb/ton LY. For new and reconstructed sources, the equivalent limit is
1.3
lb/ton LY.
Use of Add-on Control Technology. To comply with the proposed
rules, you may decide to limit VOC emissions by using add-on control
technologies such as incineration or biofiltration. More likely, you
may decide to limit emissions by monitoring process conditions to
reduce the formation of VOC while producing yeast. Process-control
steps include timing when you add raw materials and optimizing the
oxygen supply in the fermenter at critical stages.
Interaction with Other Regulations. Whatever the final format, you
may have to follow both the NESHAP and other existing rules, such as
RACT limits on VOC emissions. If an existing rule and the proposed rule
don't conflict, you must comply with both rules. Conflicts would be
resolved through your Title V permit, and the most stringent
requirements would govern.
B. Does the Proposed Rule Have Exemptions?
The proposed rule has exemptions for specialty yeasts and Torula
yeast produced using aerobic fermentation.
Specialty yeasts. This industry mainly produces varieties of
nutritional yeast from different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
However, this industry also can produce types of yeast commonly known
as ``specialty yeasts.'' Specialty yeasts include those for wine,
champagne, whiskey, and beer. Most of these yeasts are varieties of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but they're genetically diverse, so certain
strains do certain things better than others. For example, a whiskey
strain may be able to metabolize carbohydrates in an ethanol-rich
environment, whereas others can't. But, their uniqueness also means
they have narrow uses, so their production is limited compared to that
of nutritional yeast.
Of all the specialty yeasts, wine yeast is most plentiful, and
champagne and whiskey yeasts also make up a large part of the total.
Only small amounts of beer yeast are produced. Overall, specialty
yeasts usually account for less than 1 percent of a facility's total
yeast production.
We propose exempting specialty yeast production from the RACT and
PMACT standards because it is a small fraction of the total production.
It can also be difficult to estimate emissions from this process.
Specialty yeasts aren't often produced, so we have no process-control
parameters and relevant data to correlate emissions and production.
Thus, calculating emissions would be difficult and expensive.
Torula yeast. For the following reasons, we've decided not to
propose regulating Torula yeast produced using aerobic fermentation.
Torula yeast (Candida utilis) is a nutritional yeast, typically
produced as an additional product at paper mills. The high sugar
concentration of the spent sulfite liquor from the pulping process is
an ideal carbon source for Torula yeast. The only possible source of
acetaldehyde is the fermentation tank in which the Torula yeast grows.
The rest of the processes are either washing, drying, or yeast-
conditioning stages. Usually, the paper mill needs only one
fermentation tank to produce Torula yeast. The tank typically holds
80,000 gallons, and it is aerated, well agitated, and open to the
atmosphere. Because of these well aerated conditions, producing
acetaldehyde anaerobically is unlikely. Also, Candida utilis can
consume acetaldehyde and ethanol. We conclude that Torula yeast
production, as described above, should not be in the national emission
standards for nutritional yeast manufacturers because the anaerobic
conditions for acetaldehyde production never occur in the fermentation
tank.
There may be Torula yeast production at nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities. However, we don't have sufficient information
on the potential for emitting acetaldehyde or other HAPs to justify
exempting all production of Torula yeast. Therefore, we intend our
exemption to apply to paper mill-type operations, which use aerobic
fermentation. We request comment on whether this exclusion should apply
to other sources that produce Torula yeast, if any such operations
exist.
C. What Pollutants Are Proposed To Be Limited?
In both the RACT and the PMACT standards, we propose to limit VOC
emissions from fermentation production lines. As discussed in section
X.C of this preamble, we believe it is reasonable to use VOC as a
surrogate for acetaldehyde, which is the HAP of concern in this source
category. However, since some facilities may currently monitor
acetaldehyde emissions from their fermenters, the proposed rules also
allow you to meet equivalent acetaldehyde emission limits. See sections
VI and XI of this preamble for more discussion of monitoring
requirements and issues.
V. How Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Standard?
Under the proposed RACT and PMACT standards, existing sources would
have to comply with the final standards within 3 years of publication
in the Federal Register. New or reconstructed sources would have to
comply upon startup of the affected fermentation production line.
RACT Standard. You would show compliance with the RACT emission
limit if the average VOC (or equivalent acetaldehyde) concentration for
the batch is no more than the concentration in the proposed emission
limit for each fermenter and each stage. You must continuously monitor
emissions and demonstrate that your monitoring system is operating
properly.
You must also show that the average flow rate from each fermenter
used in a batch is no more than the cap on flow rate established for
it. You would monitor flow rate with a calibrated annubar or other
approved alternative to determine the air flow in the fermenter's
exhaust stack.
PMACT Standard. You would show compliance with the PMACT emission
limit for each fermentation production line if, for a given calendar
month, the average of total batch emissions per ton of liquid yeast
produced divided by the number of batch operations is no more than the
VOC or equivalent acetaldehyde standard. You must continuously monitor
emissions and demonstrate that your monitoring system is operating
properly. You must also continuously monitor the exhaust air flow from
each fermenter to be able to calculate mass emissions. Finally, you
must record the production data needed to determine the tons of liquid
yeast produced per batch. Production, or batch yield, means the
discrete amount of yeast produced from the last fermentation stage of a
batch operation. It is expressed as tons of liquid yeast, based on 30
percent solids.
Add-on Control Technology. If you choose to limit emissions by
using an add-on control technology, such as incineration or
biofiltration, you must also meet the requirements described in section
VII of this preamble.
VI. What Monitoring Must I Do To Show Ongoing Compliance?
You must meet the relevant requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 of the
General Provisions, such as those
[[Page 55818]]
governing how to do monitoring, especially continuous emission
monitoring, and how to request alternative monitoring methods. You also
must continuously monitor the emissions concentration in every affected
fermenter's exhaust stack. If you choose to monitor VOC, you would use
Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to
show your system for continuous monitoring of emissions is operating
properly. You would also use EPA Method 25A to do the relative accuracy
test PS 8 requires. Or, if you choose to monitor acetaldehyde, you
would use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show your monitoring
system is operating properly. You'd record all data as 15-minute block
values.
Both proposed rule formats would require you to continuously
monitor the rate of air flow or a parameter of the blower that is
correlated with the rate of air flow from each fermenter's exhaust
stack. In the case of the RACT rule, this information itself directly
measures compliance with the standard's required cap on flow rate. For
the PMACT rule, you would combine data on flow rate with concentration
data to calculate mass emissions from the stack. You would monitor flow
rate with a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to
determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. You'd record
all data as 15-minute block values.
If you choose to limit emissions by using an add-on control
technology, such as incineration or biofiltration, you must meet the
added monitoring requirements described in section VII of this
preamble.
VII. What if I Use an Add-On Control Technology To Comply With the
Standards?
While we do not know of any facilities that intend to use add-on
control technologies to meet the proposed emission limits, their use is
technologically feasible. Therefore, we are proposing requirements for
any facilities which choose this compliance option. Sections 63.2150
through 63.2151 of the proposed rule cover your use of incineration.
Sections 63.2155 through 63.2156 of the proposed rule cover
biofiltration. In both cases, you would have to test initial
performance and show compliance with the limits on VOC emissions. These
performance tests would establish monitoring values for the control
device's ongoing performance, and you would need to meet this
performance parameter. For an incinerator, the temperature in each
combustion chamber must stay at or above the minimum temperature
established during the performance test, based on 15-minute block
values. For a biofiltration system, you must keep the pressure drop
across the system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of
the complying pressure drop, or within the range of the complying
values for pressure drop established during your initial test of
performance.
VIII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
Must I Follow?
Initial Notice. If the standards apply to you, you would need to
send a notice to the Administrator within 120 days after the effective
date of these standards for existing sources and within 120 days after
the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources. As
outlined in the General Provisions under 40 CFR 63.9, this report
notifies the Administrator (or delegated agency under section 112(l) of
the Act) that an existing facility must meet the proposed standards or
that you've constructed a new facility. Thus it allows you and the
Administrator to plan for compliance activities.
Notice of Performance Tests and Periods for Evaluating Continuous
Emission Monitors. The General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7 and 40 CFR
63.9(g), require you to notify the Administrator (or delegated agency
under section 112(l) of the Act) before testing the performance of
control devices and evaluating continuous emissions monitors.
Notice of Compliance Status. The General Provisions, 40 CFR
63.9(h), require you to send a notice of compliance status within 60
days after the final compliance date. This report must include your
compliance certification, the results of performance tests and
monitoring, and a description of how you'll determine continuing
compliance as outlined under 40 CFR 63.9. Your notice must include the
range of each monitored parameter for each affected source, information
verifying this range shows compliance with the emission standard, and
information indicating that each source has operated within its
designated operating parameters. To comply with the proposed VOC or
acetaldehyde emission limits, your compliance report must contain at
least three months worth of complying data.
Periodic Reports. The following periodic reports are required under
this proposal. You would have to send us reports every six months if
any of the following were true:
Your operation doesn't comply with the emission limits.
A monitored value is exceeds its benchmark.
A change occurs at your facility or within your process
that might affect its compliance status.
A change occurs at your facility or within your process
that you must normally report in the initial notice.
See Sec. 63.2165 of the proposed rules for more information.
Other Reports. The General Provisions, particularly sections 40 CFR
63.9 and 63.10, require certain other reports, including those you must
do for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. For example, you
must develop a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have
to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests
to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected
source or until the source no longer must meet the standards in the
proposed rule. If your procedures are consistent with your plan, you
must say so in writing and deliver or postmark your report to us by
July 30 and January 30. If your procedures are inconsistent with your
plan, you must report what you're doing within two working days after
starting these inconsistent actions, then send us a letter within seven
working days after the event ends.
IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed
Standards?
A. What Is the Affected Source?
We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source regulated by the
NESHAP. Within a source category, we select the emission sources
(emission points or groupings of emission points) that will make up the
affected source. To select these emission sources, we mainly consider
the constituent HAP and quantity emitted from individual, or groups, of
emission points.
In selecting the affected source for the NESHAP on nutritional
yeast manufacturing, we identified the HAP-emitting operations at
existing facilities. Manufacturers produce yeast in the following
steps.
Grow the yeast from the pure yeast culture in a series of
fermentation vessels. Molasses, nutrients and vitamins are added along
with oxygen to ensure optimal feed rates and aerobic conditions for
maximizing yield of the final product.
Recover the yeast from the final fermenter using
centrifugal action to concentrate the yeast solids.
Filter the yeast solids using a filter press or a rotary
vacuum filter to concentrate the yeast further.
[[Page 55819]]
Blend the yeast filter cake in mixers with small amounts
of water, emulsifiers, and cutting oils.
Extrude the mixed press cake and cut it.
Wrap the cakes for shipment or dry them to form dry yeast.
Acetaldehyde, along with ethanol and other non-HAP VOC, form when
conditions in the fermentation tank become anaerobic. The rate of VOC
formation is higher in the earlier stages, but results in far less mass
than in later stages because the earlier stages occur in smaller
fermenters and the overall production rate is lower. One company
recently showed that more than 99 percent of emissions from nutritional
yeast manufacturing occur during the last three fermentation stages.
Therefore, we decided to limit the NESHAP to these last three stages.
We also considered whether to treat the affected source as each
piece of equipment (fermenter) or as a collection of equipment.
Individual facilities differ in the structure of their fermentation
lines. Also, even at the same facility, production processes can vary
between products and batches. Because of the variability in the number,
type, and use of individual fermenters, we're proposing to treat the
affected source as the fermentation production line. We've defined the
``fermentation production line'' as the collection of fermenters used
in the last three fermentation stages. This collection of fermenters
would be required to meet the proposed rules for existing and new
sources (i.e., under the proposed RACT approach, each of the fermenters
in the last three stages would be required to comply with the
applicable VOC/acetaldehyde emission limit, and under the proposed
production-based approach, the total mass of VOC/acetaldehyde emissions
from the fermenters in the last three stages of each batch must be
below the applicable limit per ton LY produced in the batch).
Wastewater is another potential source of VOC/acetaldehyde
emissions in the nutritional yeast manufacturing process. Wastewater
comes from washing and drying the final yeast product. It may also come
from using of an add-on control technology that reduces emissions from
fermentation. For example, one facility, which is no longer operating,
used biofiltration to remove VOC from the stack gas. It also installed
a wet scrubber upstream of the biofilter to remove potassium and
ammonia from the exhaust gas because these chemicals slow the growth of
microorganisms used to remove the VOC. Although scrubbers can remove
VOC/acetaldehyde from gas streams, they also produce wastewater that
contains VOC and acetaldehyde. Our PMACT partner, Wisconsin, studied
the wastewater emissions at two facilities, and determined that
acetaldehyde concentration in wastewater was very low (less than 10
ppm). Though the concentration may be low, acetaldehyde emissions from
wastewater could total more than 1 ton per year at a large facility.
Therefore, we considered acetaldehyde emissions from wastewater as
potentially being part of the affected source at facilities
manufacturing nutritional yeast.
In addition to the operations whose primary purpose is the
commercial production of nutritional yeast, large nutritional yeast
facilities usually have research and laboratory areas for research and
development. These areas may or may not be at the production site. They
test new manufacturing protocols or develop new and improved yeast
strains.
These areas normally have pilot plant sized fermenters to do lab-
scale fermentations. The size of the fermenters can be as small as 5
gallons. Although the installations are used regularly, each
fermentation batch may have different products and processes because it
is experimental research. These types of facilities have no methodical
or systematic production process, and the activity varies from day to
day.
Based on this description of research and development facilities,
we believe they should be excluded from the definition of the
nutritional yeast manufacturing source category. If we later decide to
regulate research and development facilities under a separately defined
source category under section 112(c)(7) of the Act, the scope of these
later rules might include research and development operations at
nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities.
B. How Was PMACT Determined?
We developed the presumptive MACT (PMACT) for nutritional yeast
manufacturing in 1994 with input from Federal, State, and local
environmental agencies and industry representatives. The PMACT
Technical Support Document, published in September 1994, summarizes
emission data and analyzes the MACT floor. In 1994, our findings
suggested that PMACT was 0.7 lb of acetaldehyde/ton LY for existing
fermentation production lines and 0.21 lb of acetaldehyde/ton LY for
new lines.
C. What Is the MACT Floor That Is the Basis for the Proposed Standard?
After developing the PMACT, we reviewed it, considering
deficiencies identified later in certain tests and data analyses as
well as test data gathered since that time. As a result, we determined
that it may be appropriate to consider the MACT floor from two
perspectives. One perspective is that available test data represent the
floor--a refined PMACT approach. In considering this approach to
setting the floor, we reviewed all available yeast production and
emissions data for nutritional yeast manufacturers in the U.S. Because
this source category has fewer than 30 sources, we tried to identify
the five best-performing sources to establish the MACT floor. We
discarded some data because of questionable test methods, particularly
in applying Method TO-5. We discarded some data because key variables,
such as the fraction of acetaldehyde in the VOC, were not documented.
We haven't included one recent test yet because we disagree with the
facility on how to measure or estimate flow rates of the emission
streams. Finally, we discarded one test because it represented only
partial emissions from a facility equipped with an add-on control
technology, and it is no longer operating. (See docket number A-97-13
for more information on emission test data and our analysis of the MACT
floor.)
After deciding which data represented the five best-performing
facilities, we revised the draft MACT floor determination for existing
fermentation production lines to 1.7 lb acetaldehyde/ton LY. The best
performing source can achieve an emissions rate of 1.3 lb acetaldehyde/
ton LY, which represents the MACT floor for new fermentation production
lines. This MACT floor is the basis for the emission limits proposed in
the PMACT rule. As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we've
proposed this level of performance both in terms of VOC and as an
equivalent acetaldehyde limit.
We also considered basing the MACT floor on existing emissions
standards, particularly RACT or limits derived from RACT. Of the 10
facilities we confirmed as operating, 5 are subject to RACT or RACT-
derived limits. This approach has several advantages compared to the
PMACT approach, in both the format of the final standards and the body
of data available to support a MACT determination. Therefore, we are
proposing that the MACT floor equals RACT.
[[Page 55820]]
As described in section II of this preamble, we are proposing that
a ``fermentation production line'' means all fermenters exceeding 7,000
gallons capacity and used in sequence to produce a discrete amount of
yeast. We chose the capacity cutoff of 7,000 gallons to define the
fermentation production line, based on industry information that
fermentation vessels larger than 7,000 gallons are used exclusively in
the last three stages of yeast manufacturing. Essentially, we are using
the capacity cutoff of 7,000 gallons to clearly define what we mean by
the last three fermentation stages of yeast manufacturing. We are
requesting comment on whether there are fermenters smaller than 7,000
gallons capacity that are used in the last three stages of yeast
manufacturing. If your comments indicate that smaller fermentation
vessels are used in the last three stages of yeast manufacturing, we
may promulgate a capacity cutoff value that is smaller than 7,000 so
that the capacity cutoff accurately defines the fermentation operations
we intend to regulate under this MACT.
Wastewater at a nutritional yeast manufacturing facility is a
potential source of VOC/HAP emissions. We tried to develop a MACT floor
for wastewater emissions. Unconfirmed information gathered during
development of the 1994 PMACT document suggests that all facilities
send their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works and that there
may be one facility that pretreats its wastewater. Because of the
extremely limited nature of this information, we haven't been able to
set a MACT floor for wastewater at this time. We're requesting comments
on MACT floor for wastewater.
We will further consider setting a MACT floor for wastewater, based
on your comments and data, and any other information that becomes
available to us. Upon further consideration, we may set a MACT floor
for wastewater based on pretreatment, air emission controls on
wastewater units, treatment of wastewater off-site at a POTW, other
technologies, or some combination of these options.
D. What Is Proposed MACT?
As described in our January 1992 document, ``Assessment of VOC
Emissions and Their Control from Baker's Yeast Manufacturing'' (EPA-
450/3-91-027), process control on the fermentation production line
should be able to reduce 75 to 95 percent of emissions. Vessel design
may also reduce emissions, but we can't determine at this point which
designs may be most effective for the entire industry. Although using
add-on control devices theoretically could reduce emissions 95 to 98
percent, the industry doesn't use them now. One facility that formerly
used add-on control technology had enough problems to dissuade us from
requiring it, even at new facilities, in the proposed standards. We
believe no workable control options exist for the fermentation
production line beyond the floor, which is represented by process
control at facilities subject to RACT or RACT-like limits. Therefore,
we are proposing that MACT equals the MACT floor for the fermentation
production line.
As discussed in the PMACT approach to the MACT floor, we have
identified the top five performing sources in the industry using
available data. For this PMACT approach, we selected the average
emissions level of these sources as the proposed emission limit for
existing sources. We selected the performance of the best-performing
source as the proposed emission limit for new sources.
The RACT approach is based on at least five existing sources
already having to meet RACT or RACT-like limits. We believe these
facilities are producing fewer emissions than RACT requires, based on
rough analysis of production data and information from these
facilities. Thus, although we are proposing the RACT limits as the MACT
limits, we will consider comments and data that support a potentially
lower MACT emission limit. This information should also allow us to
determine if new sources can achieve an even more stringent MACT, based
on the best-performing source.
For the same reasons we were unable to identify a MACT floor for
wastewater emissions, we are not proposing a MACT standard for
wastewater emissions at this time. We're requesting comments on
regulating wastewater at manufacturers of nutritional yeast, and on
appropriate MACT standards for wastewater. We will further consider
setting a MACT requirements for wastewater, based on your comments and
data, and any other information that becomes available to us. Upon
further consideration, we may promulgate MACT requirements for
nutritional yeast manufacturing wastewater that include pretreatment,
air emission controls on wastewater units, treatment of wastewater off-
site at a POTW, other technologies, or some combination of these
options.
X. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed
Standards?
As discussed above, we are co-proposing two standards with
different formats. The proposed PMACT standard would be expressed as a
limit on the amount of VOC emitted in fermenter offgas for a given
amount of yeast produced, in units of weight of VOC per weight of yeast
produced. (We standardize yeast production as 30 percent solids.) The
proposed RACT standard would be based on the concentration of VOC in
fermenter offgas coupled with a limit on air flow from each fermenter.
In this section, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
each format and request comment on the best format for the promulgated
standards.
Section 112 of the Act requires us to prescribe emission standards
for HAP control unless, in the Administrator's judgment, it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce them according to section 112(h) of
the Act: (1) if the HAP can't be emitted through a conveyance designed
and built to emit or capture the HAP, or (2) if measurement methodology
isn't practicable because of technological or economic limitations. If
we can't prescribe or enforce emission standards, we may establish an
equipment, work practice, design, or operational standard, or a
combination of these approaches.
In this case, we know an emission standard is workable for the
fermentation production line because several of you are already
complying with emission standards on the line, and test methods and
monitoring methods are available to measure emissions. We then
considered whether the limit should be based on production or on outlet
concentration. Both formats have advantages and disadvantages, which we
have summarized below.
A. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Production-Based Format
A production-based format, such as the proposed PMACT regulation,
ensures that all regulated sources, even those with variable processes,
must meet uniform standards. We do not know of any way that a source
could meet a production-based standard by diluting emission streams
with increased air flow; however, such dilution is a potential problem
under a concentration-based format, such as the proposed RACT-like
regulation.
A potential problem for the production-based format is that
measuring production out of the fermenter is difficult and inexact.
Several days' or even weeks' worth of
[[Page 55821]]
data may be needed to measure production accurately. Also, yields vary
significantly, which would make it difficult to correlate the
fermenter's yield with the final product delivered. Measuring inputs,
such as the amount of sweetener added, is even more complex.
A significant concern commenters raised in stakeholder meetings was
that a production-based format would require you to submit production
information to show compliance, which could damage your competitiveness
if the information became available to the public. A related concern is
that you would be unable to review the data we used to develop the
standard because it must remain confidential. Also, you have raised
concerns about the cost and burden of monitoring and recordkeeping,
which depend on the sum of emissions from each batch based on the ratio
of fermentation stages, plus determining the yield from each batch of
trade yeast. One company estimated initial investments of $500,000 to
$1,000,000 per facility, and annual expenses of $50,000 to $100,000 per
facility.
B. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Concentration-Based Format
A concentration-based limit, similar to the existing RACT format
for VOC, avoids several problems of a production-based limit, such as
the need for you to openly report production. This format could allow
you and others to more thoroughly review data we use to set the MACT
floor. Testing and monitoring costs are likely to be lower, especially
if the standard allows you to comply with a VOC standard. Finally, this
format allows a shorter averaging time, such as a batch cycle, to
measure emissions.
One potential disadvantage of a concentration-based format is that
sources could meet the standard by increasing air flow, and thus
diluting the emission stream, rather than reducing acetaldehyde
emissions. Some of you have suggested that this disadvantage should not
be a regulatory concern, because the relative expense of air flow
handling systems precludes you from installing systems that have excess
air flow capacity. Essentially, you have indicated that most fermenter
blowers are already operating at their full capacity, and this is not a
practical concern for existing sources. However, we continue to
consider the potential for dilution of emission streams to be a
regulatory concern, particularly for new and modified sources, and are
proposing to include a cap on air flow rate.
Depending on how we cap the flow rate, some of you expressed
concern that you would lose the flexibility to vary the overall balance
of flow rate and concentration. Setting a cap also could be difficult
given that air flow varies by fermentation stage, product, and other
variables. You would also need to show that the cap itself doesn't
allow excessive air flow. Some of you also were concerned that
reporting flow-rate data would harm confidentiality and
competitiveness.
C. Why Does the Standard Allow Using VOC as a Surrogate for
Acetaldehyde?
We propose to regulate VOC emissions as a surrogate for
acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde and ethanol are both undesirable by-products
from the fermentation process, and controlling one controls the other.
Using a VOC standard will reduce compliance costs, because monitoring
VOC is less complex and expensive than monitoring acetaldehyde. We
haven't received any evidence that sources can selectively control VOC
at the expense of increased acetaldehyde, nor do we know of any
incentive for sources to do so. Therefore, we're asking for comment on
whether we should promulgate a final standard that allows the use of
VOC as a surrogate for acetaldehyde.
XI. Why Did We Select the Proposed Monitoring Requirements?
The proposed monitoring requirements are consistent with our policy
of developing them ``top-down,'' with the most stringent tier
representing continuous monitoring that directly measures compliance
with the emission limits. We have published appropriate EPA monitoring
methods, and several sources already do similar monitoring to show
compliance with permit requirements.
XII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Test Methods?
The proposed rules would require emissions tests for cases in which
a source decides to meet the emission limit by using an add-on control
device. The test methods we propose to require are existing EPA methods
that are familiar to the industry and readily available. Late in
proposal development we identified two test methods developed by a
voluntary consensus body that may be alternatives for EPA Method 2 and
EPA Method 18. The first, ASTM D 3464-96, Standard Test Method for
Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer, may be an
equivalent alternative to EPA Method 2. The second, ASTM D 6060-96,
Standard Practice for Sampling of Process Vents with a Portable Gas
Chromatograph, is a possible alternative to EPA Method 18, but may lack
sufficient quality assurance procedures to fully substitute for Method
18 in this rulemaking. We will further compare these two ASTM methods
to EPA Methods 2 and 18, and evaluate the appropriateness of their use
for the final subpart CCCC rule. We also request comments on the
feasibility of using these or other methods to perform the necessary
testing procedures to show compliance with the proposed standards.
Because of the long history behind use of the EPA methods, we would
need compelling evidence to convince us that other methods are better
alternatives.
We have identified some concerns related to the use of EPA Method 2
for measuring volumetric flow rate due to unpredictably fluctuating
pressures in the exhaust stacks of the fermenters. Under these
conditions, it may not be possible to obtain reliable air flow data by
using a pitot tube and manometer. We are considering whether we need to
modify Method 2 or replace it with another method when we promulgate
the final rules. We ask the public to comment and provide relevant
information on this issue.
XIII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping Requirements?
The proposed rules require you to comply with the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General Provisions.
They also establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements we must
have to ensure you comply with requirements in subpart CCCC.
XIV. How Can I Comment on This Proposed Rule?
A. Written Comments
We want your participation before arriving at our final decisions
and strongly encourage all comments, including complete supporting data
and detailed analyses if possible so we can best use these comments.
Send all comments to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Docket No. A-97-13 (see ADDRESSES) by December 18, 1998.
If you want to send proprietary information for consideration,
clearly distinguish it from other comments and label it ``Confidential
Business Information.'' Send submissions containing such proprietary
information directly to the following address to make sure the
proprietary material doesn't go into the docket: Attention:
[[Page 55822]]
Michele Aston, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential Business
Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711. Don't send it to the public docket or through
electronic mail. We will disclose information you claim to be
confidential only as allowed by 40 CFR part 2. If you don't claim
confidentiality, we may make your information available to the public
without further notice to you .
B. Public Hearing
If you want to provide verbal comments about the proposed
standards, contact us (see ADDRESSES), and we will hold a public
hearing. Anyone may file a written statement by December 18, 1998. Send
written statements to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A-97-13. If a public
hearing is held, we will place a verbatim transcript of the hearing and
written statements in the docket, which you can read and copy at the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).
XV. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposed
Rule?
A. Docket
The docket for this regulatory action is A-97-13. The docket is an
organized and complete file of all the information we considered in
developing this proposed rule. It's a dynamic file because we keep
adding material throughout the rule's development. The docketing system
allows you to readily identify and locate documents so you can
participate in rulemaking. Along with the proposed and promulgated
standards and their preambles, contents of the docket will serve as the
record in case of judicial review (see section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
Act).
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because the proposed rules will affect only 10 existing facilities,
and because we expect no new facilities, we project the economic
effects to be far less than $100 million nationwide. Nor do we
anticipate any significant adverse effects to the facilities. Under
Executive Order 12866, this action is not a significant regulatory
action and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State,
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any
sources subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase
control systems to meet the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with
States, as described in section III.E of this preamble, to enable them
to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule.
D. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Under
Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
we must provide OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue
the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires us to
develop an effective process permitting elected and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments because no known nutritional
yeast manufacturing facilities are located within these governments'
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
We've submitted to OMB requirements for collecting information
associated with the proposed standards (those included in 40 CFR part
63, subpart A and subpart CCCC) for approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an
Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1886-01), and
you may get a copy from Sandy Farmer, OP, Regulatory Information
Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the interent at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The total 3-year burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
for this collection is estimated at 19,135 labor hours, and the annual
average burden is 6,379 labor hours for the affected facilities. Annual
capital costs for VOC monitoring systems is estimated to be
[[Page 55823]]
$622,300 ($373,400 per facility for five facilities and annualized over
three years). This estimate includes annual performance tests for some
sources; ongoing monitoring for all sources; semiannual reports when
someone doesn't follow a plan for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual reports on excess emissions;
maintenance inspections; notices; and recordkeeping.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources people
spend to generate, maintain, keep, or disclose to or for a Federal
Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate,
and verify information; process, maintain, disclose, and provide
information; adjust ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train people to respond to a collection
of information; search data sources; collect and review information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person need not respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of our burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
lessening a respondent's burden (including automation) to the Director,
OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Mark your comments
``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.'' Include EPA's ICR number in any
correspondence. The final rule will respond to all comments from OMB or
the public on this proposal's information-collection requirements.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because few or none of the 10
facilities expected to be subject to the proposed rule are small
entities, and because the regulatory impacts are anticipated to be
insignificant. Therefore, I certify that this proposed action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The proposed rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they
own or operate no sources subject to this proposed rule and therefore
are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements
of this proposed rule. Regarding the private sector, the proposed rule
will affect only 10 existing facilities nationwide. We project that
annual economic effects will be far less than $100 million. Thus,
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in developing this proposed
rule, EPA consulted with States, as described in section III.E of this
preamble, to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of this proposed rule.
We also have determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on small governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources
subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase control
systems to meet the requirements of this proposed rule.
H. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks Under Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1)
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonable alternatives considered by the Agency.
The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
[[Page 55824]]
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose
to use longstanding EPA Reference test methods and procedures that show
compliance with emission standards. Specifically, we require EPA test
methods 1 through 4 and 25A, and Performance Specifications 8 and 9, as
codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We identified two candidate
voluntary consensus standards as being potentially applicable, and we
are soliciting comment on them in this proposed rulemaking. These
methods are discussed in more detail in section XII of this preamble.
XVI. What is the Statutory Authority for This Proposed Rule?
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided in sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rulemaking is also subject to
section 307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Nutritional yeast manufacturing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 7, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCCC (Option 1 and Option
2) to read as follows:
[Option 1 for Subpart CCCC]
Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
What This Regulation Covers
Sec.
63.2130 What is in this regulation?
63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?
63.2136 When must I comply?
General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and for
Monitoring and Performance Tests
63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standard?
63.2141 What monitoring must I do?
63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?
Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control
63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the
standard?
Requirements for Incinerators
63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?
63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the standard?
Requirements for Biofiltration
63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?
63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the standard?
Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring
63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of
monitoring?
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
63.2165 What reports must I prepare?
63.2166 What records must I maintain?
63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?
Delegation of Authorities
63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
Secs. 63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]
Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
What This Regulation Covers
Sec. 63.2130 What is in this regulation?
This regulation describes the actions you must take to reduce
emissions if you own or operate a facility that manufactures
nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast or Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. The regulation establishes emission standards and states
what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all who must
follow the regulation; others depend on the means you use to comply
with an emission standard.
Sec. 63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?
(a) This regulation applies to you if you own, operate, or build a
facility that manufactures nutritional yeast and it falls under either
of the following categories:
(1) It is located at a new or existing major source of hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) emissions, meaning: ``any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous
air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of
hazardous air pollutants.''
(2) It is located at a new or existing area source that increases
its actual or potential HAP emissions enough to become a major source.
(b) Each individual fermentation production line is an affected
source if it supports the industrial production of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae and it fits the following descriptions.
(1) Fermentation production line. A ``fermentation production
line'' means all fermenters that can hold more than 7,000 gallons and
are used in sequence to produce yeast. This regulation limits the line
to the last three fermentation stages, which may be referred to as
``stock, first generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A
batch combines these three fermentation stages to produce a single
product. A fermentation production line excludes flask, pure-culture,
or yeasting-tank fermentation, as well as all operations after the last
dewatering operation, such as filtration.
(2) Purposes of yeast production. This regulation applies to your
facility only if the yeast is made for the purpose of becoming an
ingredient in dough for bread or any other yeast-raised baked product,
or for becoming a nutritional food additive.
(c) This regulation also doesn't apply when you perform any of the
following operations at your facility:
(1) Produce specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne,
whiskey, and beer.
(2) Produce torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic
fermentation.
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?
(a) Unless you comply with the standard using equipment specified
in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, you must meet the emission
limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) or acetaldehyde in the
exhaust-gas stream from a fermenter during a fermentation batch.
(1) Prior to submitting your compliance certification under
Sec. 63.9(h) (initial compliance), you must select
[[Page 55825]]
whether you will monitor VOC or acetaldehyde. This selection will
determine the applicable standards for your facility. Section 63.2165
contains additional information on the notification procedures you must
follow in making your selection.
(2) If you monitor VOC, comply with the concentration limits of
Table 1 of this section:
Table 1.--Limits on VOC Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
allowable
concentration
Fermentation stage of VOC,
measured as
ethanol
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last stage (Trade)....................................... 150
Second-to-last stage (First generation).................. 225
Third-to-last stage (Stock).............................. 450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) If you monitor acetaldehyde, comply with the concentration
limits of Table 2 of this section:
Table 2.--Limits on Acetaldehyde Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
allowable
concentration
Fermentation stage of
acetaldehyde
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last stage (Trade)....................................... 27
Second-to-last stage (First generation).................. 41
Third-to-last stage (Stock).............................. 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) If you follow the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section,
you must maintain the exhaust flow rate over a batch for every
fermenter below the maximum flow rate set according to the following
procedures.
(1) For an existing fermenter, set the flow rate cap based on the
average exhaust flow rate for that fermenter over the last 12 months.
(2) For a fermenter constructed or reconstructed after October 19,
1998, you must cap the flow rate at the maximum flow rate per fermenter
volume specified in our written guidance.
(c) If you use an incinerator to comply with the standard, you must
maintain the minimum operating temperature established in
Sec. 63.2142(a).
(d) If you use a biofilter to comply with the standard, you must
maintain the pressure drop within the complying pressure drop range
established in Sec. 63.2142(a).
Sec. 63.2136 When must I comply?
(a) If construction of your fermentation production line commenced
on or before October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after [Insert
date 3 years from publication of final rule in Federal Register.]
(b) If construction or reconstruction of your fermentation
production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must comply on
and after [Insert date of publication of final rule in Federal
Register] or on and after the date when you start operations, whichever
is later.
(c) If your fermentation production line becomes an affected source
after October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after the date 3 years
following the day it became an affected source, as defined by
Sec. 63.2131.
(d) If you can't meet a deadline, you may ask to extend the
compliance date by following the criteria and procedures in
Sec. 63.6(i).
(e) You must comply with the provisions in this subpart at all
times except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (as
defined in Sec. 63.2.)
General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and
for Monitoring and Performance Tests
Sec. 63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standard?
(a) Process control. You may use process control to reduce VOC and
acetaldehyde emissions and comply with the emission standard. ``Process
control'' means reducing emissions of VOC and acetaldehyde by
manipulating the flow of raw material, supply of oxygen, or some other
input, thereby controlling fermentation.
(b) Add-on control technology. As an alternative to process
control, you may use an add-on control technology, such as incineration
or biofiltration, to reduce VOC and acetaldehyde emissions and comply
with the emission standard.
(c) Showing compliance. Whether you use process or add-on controls,
you must show initial and ongoing compliance with the emission
standards in Sec. 63.2135. See the rest of this subpart for procedures
you must follow.
(d) Operation and maintenance. You must comply with the operation
and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e).
(e) General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) apply to owners and operators of major sources of HAP
emissions in all source categories, including nutritional yeast
manufacturing. Table 1 of this section lists the General Provisions
that apply to nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities:
Table 1 of Sec. 63.2140--General Provisions That Apply to Subpart CCCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Reference, subpart A general CCCC, 63.2130- Comment
provisions 63.2229
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5...................... Yes.
63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j)........... Yes.
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)- Yes.
(h)(9).
63.7(h)(7)..................... No................. Sec. 63.6(h)(7),
using continuous
opacity
monitoring,
doesn't apply.
63.7........................... Yes.
63.8........................... Yes.
63.9........................... Yes.
63.10.......................... Yes.
63.11.......................... No................. Don't use flares
to comply with
the emission
limits.
63.12-63.15.................... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55826]]
Sec. 63.2141 What monitoring must I do?
(a) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.8.
(b) You must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and the
plan for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions that you must develop and
use according to Sec. 63.6(e).
(c) If you choose to continuously monitor VOC emissions, you must
use Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part
60, to show that your continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is
operating properly.
(1) Use EPA Method 25A, in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to do the
relative-accuracy test PS 8 requires.
(2) Calibrate the reference method and the CEMS with ethanol.
(3) Collect a 1-hour sample for each reference-method test.
(4) Set the CEMS span at 1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant emission
limit.
(d) If you choose to continuously monitor acetaldehyde emissions,
you must use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show that your CEMS is
operating properly.
(e) If you are subject to Sec. 63.2135(b), you must continuously
monitor either the air-flow rate or a parameter of the blower system
correlated with the air-flow rate exiting each fermenter's exhaust
stack. Use a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to
determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. A
``fermenter's exhaust stack'' means the vent or ductwork that provides
an outlet for gas from a fermenter.
Sec. 63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?
(a) Testing frequency. If you choose to comply with the standard
using an add-on control technology, you must test its initial
performance to show compliance with the emission limits in
Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) or (a)(3) and to establish baseline monitoring
parameters that satisfy Secs. 63.2150 and 63.2155, as applicable. You
must test the control device's performance while manufacturing the
product that comprises the largest percentage of average annual
production. Test the device's performance within 180 days from the
compliance date that applies to you and test it again at least every 3
years or when process conditions change that would require a new
correlation.
(b) Approved test methods. You must follow the procedures in
Secs. 63.7 and 63.8 and use one of the following test methods. Unless
changed in this subpart, all EPA methods are in appendix A of part 60
of this chapter.
(1) Use Method 1 to select the sampling port's location and the
number of traverse points.
(2) Use Method 2 to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 3 for gas analysis to determine the dry molecular
weight of the stack gas.
(4) Use Method 4 to determine moisture content of the stack gas. 40
CFR part 60.
(5) Use EPA Method 25A, or any alternative validated by EPA Method
301, to measure VOC as ethanol.
(c) Additional requirements for performance tests. Make sure you:
(1) Design the test to sample a complete batch. You must do three
sampling runs for each of the three fermentation stages in a batch, as
defined in this rule.
(2) Do the test at a point in the exhaust-gas stream before you
inject any dilution air, meaning any air not needed to control
fermentation.
(3) Record the results of each run of the performance test.
Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control
Sec. 63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) If you monitor VOC using data obtained under Sec. 63.2141(c),
you must calculate the VOC concentration (measured as ethanol) from
each fermentation stage of the batch. Record data as 15-minute block
values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following
requirements:
(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.
(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.
(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.
(b) The VOC concentration of a stage is the average of all 15-
minute block values recorded during that stage. You meet the emission
standard in Sec. 63.2135(a) if the VOC concentration is no more than
the values in Table 1 for each fermenter.
(c) If you monitor acetaldehyde using data obtained under
Sec. 63.2141(d), you must calculate the acetaldehyde concentration from
each fermentation stage of the batch. Record data as 15-minute block
values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following
requirements:
(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.
(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.
(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.
(d) The acetaldehyde concentration of a stage is the average of all
15-minute block values recorded during that stage. You meet the
emission standard in Sec. 63.2135(a) if the acetaldehyde concentration
is no more than the values in Table 2 for each fermenter.
(e) Using the data obtained under Sec. 63.2141(e), you must
calculate the flow rate from each fermenter for each batch. Record data
as 15-minute block values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the
following requirements:
(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.
(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.
(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.
(f) The flow rate of a stage is the average of all 15-minute block
values recorded during that stage. You meet Sec. 63.2135(b) if the flow
rate recorded for each fermenter is no more than the maximum flow rate
cap established under Sec. 63.2135(b).
Requirements for Incinerators
Sec. 63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?
(a) You must monitor and record the temperature in the main chamber
and afterburner at least once every 15 minutes.
(b) Make sure the monitoring equipment is installed and operating,
and verify the data, before or during the performance test. To verify
that your equipment is operating, you must meet at least one of the
following standards:
(1) The manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations
for installing, operating, and calibrating the system.
(2) Other written procedures that ensure reasonably accurate
monitoring.
(c) Install, operate, and maintain the monitoring equipment so it
gives you representative measurements of parameters from the regulated
sources.
Sec. 63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) First, you must establish the minimum operating temperature for
each combustion chamber and afterburner with a performance test under
procedures in Sec. 63.2142. The minimum operating temperature is the
average of the three test run values recorded under Sec. 63.2142(c).
(b) Second, you must ensure that the temperature in each combustion
chamber stays at or above the minimum operating temperature, based on
15-minute block values taken according to Sec. 63.2150.
[[Page 55827]]
Requirements for Biofiltration
Sec. 63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?
(a) You must monitor and record the pressure drop across the
biofiltration system at least once every 8 hours.
(b) You must maintain the pressure drop across the biofiltration
system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of the complying
pressure drop, or within the range of the complying values for pressure
drop established during your initial performance test. ``Complying
pressure drop'' means the pressure drop at which your system meets an
emission standard.
Sec. 63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) You must establish the complying pressure drop across the
system during a performance test, following procedures in Sec. 63.2142.
(b) For each biofiltration system, you may establish either of the
following:
(1) A range of complying pressure drops by conducting multiple
compliance performance tests.
(2) One complying pressure drop as the average pressure drop
measured over three test runs of a single performance test.
(c) The pressure drop across your system must stay within 5 percent
and 1 inch of the water column of the complying pressure drop, or range
established in your performance test.
Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring
Sec. 63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of
monitoring?
(a) Monitoring and recordkeeping. (1) Request and receive approval
from the Administrator to use other monitoring methods, following
Sec. 63.8(f).
(2) Use the approved alternate monitoring procedure so you
continuously meet the emission standard that applies to you.
(3) Comply with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements the
Administrator specifies.
(b) Compliance demonstrations. (1) Do an initial performance test
to show you meet the emission standard.
(2) During any performance test, you must show that your monitoring
method can determine whether your process controls or add-on controls
meet the emission standard that applies to you.
(3) Unless the Administrator specifies another schedule, test
performance once per year.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Sec. 63.2165 Which reports must I prepare?
(a) You must follow the notification procedures in Sec. 63.9 and
the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.10. If the Administrator hasn't
delegated authority under subpart E of this part to your State, you
must notify the EPA's appropriate regional office. If your State has
delegated authority, notify your State and send copy of each notice to
the appropriate EPA regional office. The regional office may waive this
requirement.
(b) Following the procedures in Sec. 63.9(h), within 60 days after
completing the relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in
Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, or 63.2156, notify the Administrator of your
initial compliance status. In the case of Sec. 63.2145, process
control, you must report at least three months worth of complying data.
(c) Annually, certify your compliance by reporting the following
information:
(1) How you determined compliance, including specific information
about the parameters you monitored and the methods you used to monitor
them.
(2) The results of your monitoring procedures or methods.
(3) How you will continue to comply including a description of
monitoring and reporting requirements and test methods.
(4) A statement attesting to whether your facility has complied
with this regulation, signed by a responsible official who shall
certify its accuracy.
Sec. 63.2166 What records must I maintain?
(a) In addition to meeting the recordkeeping requirements under
Sec. 63.10, you must record the following information in a daily log:
(1) Operation time for all control devices and monitoring
equipment.
(2) Details of all routine and other maintenance on all control
devices and monitoring equipment, including dates and duration of any
outages.
(3) The fermentation stage for which you're using each fermenter.
(b) You must also record the information required to support your
compliance demonstrations under Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, and 63.2156.
Sec. 63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?
You must keep all records available for inspection for at least 5
years--onsite for the most recent 2 years of operation. You may keep
records for the previous 3 years off site.
Delegation of Authorities
Sec. 63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under subpart E of this part, the Administrator will retain the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.2171--63.2229 [Reserved]
[Option 2 for Subpart CCCC]
Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
What This Regulation Covers
Sec.
63.2130 What is in this regulation?
63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?
63.2136 When must I comply?
General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission standards and for
Monitoring and Performance Tests
63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standard?
63.2141 What monitoring must I do?
63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?
Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control
63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the
standard?
Requirements for Incinerators
63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?
63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the standard?
Requirements for Biofiltration
63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?
63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the standard?
Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring
63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of
monitoring?
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
63.2165 What reports must I prepare?
63.2166 What records must I maintain?
63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?
Delegation of Authorities
63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]
[[Page 55828]]
Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
What This Regulation Covers
Sec. 63.2130 What is in this regulation?
This regulation describes the actions you must take to reduce
emissions if you own or operate a facility that manufactures
nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast or Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. The regulation establishes emission standards and states
what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all who must
follow the regulation; others depend on the means you use to comply
with an emission standard.
Sec. 63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?
(a) This regulation applies to you if you own, operate, or build a
facility that manufactures nutritional yeast and it falls under either
of the following categories:
(1) It is located at a new or existing major source of hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) emissions, meaning: ``any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous
air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of
hazardous air pollutants.''
(2) It is located at a new or existing area source that increases
its actual or potential HAP emissions enough to become a major source.
(b) Each individual fermentation production line is an affected
source if it supports the industrial production of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae and it fits the following descriptions.
(1) Fermentation production line. A ``fermentation production
line'' means all fermenters that can hold more than 7,000 gallons and
are used in sequence to produce yeast. This regulation limits the line
to the last three fermentation stages, which may be referred to as
``stock, first generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A
batch combines these three fermentation stages to produce a single
product. A fermentation production line excludes flask, pure-culture,
or yeasting-tank fermentation, as well as all operations after the last
dewatering operation, such as filtration.
(2) Purposes of yeast production. This regulation applies to your
facility only if the yeast is made for the purpose of becoming an
ingredient in dough for bread or any other yeast-raised baked product,
or for becoming a nutritional food additive.
(c) This regulation also doesn't apply when you perform any of the
following operations at your facility:
(1) Produce specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne,
whiskey, and beer.
(2) Produce torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic
fermentation.
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?
(a) Unless you comply with the standard using equipment specified
in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, you must meet the applicable
emission limits in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(3) of this section for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) or (a)(4) through (a)(5) of this
section for acetaldehyde emitted from the fermentation production line.
(1) Prior to submitting your compliance certification under
Sec. 63.9(h) (initial compliance), you must select whether you will
monitor VOC or acetaldehyde. This selection will determine the
applicable standards for your facility. Section 63.2165 contains
additional information on the notification procedures you must follow
in making your selection.
(2) If you monitor VOC and construction of your fermentation
production line commenced on or before October 19, 1998, you must limit
VOC emissions from each line to 9.4 pounds per ton of liquid yeast
produced (9.4 lb/ton LY) for each calendar month.
(3) If you monitor VOC and construction or reconstruction of your
fermentation production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must
limit VOC emissions from each line to 7.2 lb/ton LY for each calendar
month.
(4) If you monitor acetaldehyde and construction of your
fermentation production line commenced on or before October 19, 1998,
you must limit acetaldehyde emissions from each line to 1.7 lb/ton LY
for each calendar month.
(5) If you monitor acetaldehyde and construction or reconstruction
of your fermentation production line commenced after October 19, 1998,
you must limit acetaldehyde emissions from each line to 1.3 lb/ton LY
for each calendar month.
(b) If you use an incinerator to comply with the standard, you must
maintain the minimum operating temperature established in
Sec. 63.2142(a).
(c) If you use a biofilter to comply with the standard, you must
maintain the pressure drop within the complying pressure drop range
established in Sec. 63.2142(a).
Sec. 63.2136 When must I comply?
(a) If construction of your fermentation production line commenced
on or before October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after [Insert
date 3 years from publication of final rule in Federal Register.]
(b) If construction or reconstruction of your fermentation
production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must comply on
and after [Insert date of publication of final rule in Federal
Register] or on and after the date when you start operations, whichever
is later.
(c) If your fermentation production line becomes an affected source
after October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after the date 3 years
following the day it became an affected source, as defined by
Sec. 63.2131.
(d) If you can't meet a deadline, you may ask to extend the
compliance date by following the criteria and procedures in
Sec. 63.6(i).
(e) You must comply with the provisions in this subpart at all
times except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (as
defined in Sec. 63.2.)
General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and
for Monitoring and Performance Tests
Sec. 63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standard?
(a) Process control. You may use process control to reduce VOC and
acetaldehyde emissions and comply with the emission standard. ``Process
control'' means reducing emissions of VOC and acetaldehyde by
manipulating the flow of raw material, supply of oxygen, or some other
input, thereby controlling fermentation.
(b) Add-on control technology. As an alternative to process
control, you may use an add-on control technology, such as incineration
or biofiltration, to reduce VOC and acetaldehyde emissions and comply
with the emission standard.
(c) Showing compliance. Whether you use process or add-on controls,
you must show initial and ongoing compliance with the emission
standards in Sec. 63.2135. See the rest of this rule for procedures you
must follow.
(d) Operation and maintenance. You must comply with the operation
and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e).
(e) General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) apply to owners and operators of major sources of HAP
emissions in all source categories, including nutritional yeast
manufacturing. Table 1 of this section
[[Page 55829]]
lists the General Provisions that apply to nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities:
Table 1 of Sec. 63.2140.--General Provisions That Apply to Subpart CCCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Reference, subpart A general CCCC, 63.2130- Comment
provisions 63.2229
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5...................... Yes.
63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j)........... Yes.
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)- Yes.
(h)(9).
63.7(h)(7)..................... No Sec. 63.6(h)(7),
using continuous
opacity
monitoring,
doesn't apply.
63.7........................... Yes.
63.8........................... Yes.
63.9........................... Yes.
63.10.......................... Yes.
63.11.......................... No Don't use flares
to comply with
the emission
limits.
63.12-63.15.................... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.2141 What monitoring must I do?
(a) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.8.
(b) You must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and the
plan for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions that you must develop and
use according to Sec. 63.6(e).
(c) If you choose to continuously monitor VOC emissions, you must
use Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part
60, to show that your continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is
operating properly.
(1) Use EPA Method 25A, in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to do the
relative-accuracy test PS 8 requires.
(2) Calibrate the reference method and the CEMS with ethanol.
(3) Collect a 1-hour sample for each reference-method test.
(4) Set the CEMS span at 1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant emission
limit.
(d) If you choose to continuously monitor acetaldehyde emissions,
you must use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show that your CEMS is
operating properly.
(e) If you are subject to Sec. 63.2135(a), you must continuously
monitor either the air-flow rate or a parameter of the blower system
correlated with the air-flow rate exiting each fermenter's exhaust
stack. Use a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to
determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. A
``fermenter's exhaust stack'' means the vent or ductwork that provides
an outlet for gas from a fermenter.
Sec. 63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?
(a) Testing frequency. If you choose to comply with the standard
using an add-on control technology, you must test its initial
performance to show compliance with the emission limits in
Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) and (a)(3), as applicable, and to establish baseline
monitoring parameters that satisfy Secs. 63.2150 and 63.2155, as
applicable. You must test the control device's performance while
manufacturing the product that comprises the largest percentage of
average annual production. Test the device's performance within 180
days from the compliance date that applies to you and test it again at
least every 3 years or when process conditions change that would
require a new correlation.
(b) Approved test methods. You must follow the procedures in
Secs. 63.7 and 63.8 and use one of the following test methods. Unless
changed in this subpart, all EPA methods are in appendix A of part 60
of this chapter.
(1) Use Method 1 to select the sampling port's location and the
number of traverse points.
(2) Use Method 2 to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 3 for gas analysis to determine the dry molecular
weight of the stack gas.
(4) Use Method 4 to determine moisture content of the stack gas. 40
CFR part 60.
(5) Use EPA Method 25A, or any alternative validated by EPA Method
301, to measure VOC as ethanol.
(c) Additional requirements for performance tests. Make sure you:
(1) Design the test to sample a complete batch. You must do three
sampling runs for each of the three fermentation stages in a batch, as
defined in this rule.
(2) Do the test at a point in the exhaust-gas stream before you
inject any dilution air, meaning any air not needed to control
fermentation.
(3) Record the results of each run of the performance test.
Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control
Sec. 63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) If you monitor VOC using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(c) and
air flow using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(e), you must record the
VOC concentration and air-flow rate in every fermenter's exhaust stack
(or a correlated parameter.) Record data as 15-minute block averages
values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following
requirements:
(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.
(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.
(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.
(b) You meet the applicable emission standards in Sec. 63.2135(a)
if the calendar month average VOC emissions per ton of liquid yeast
produced is no more than the limits in Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) and (a)(3)
for each batch. You must calculate emissions using the following
procedures:
(1) Calculate emissions from each affected fermentation stage (E)
using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.002
where:
a(t)=air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack at a particular time;
[[Page 55830]]
t0 and t1=the beginning and end, respectively, of
the time period for the production of a batch; and
c(t)=the concentration of VOC in the fermenter's exhaust stack at a
particular time.
(2) Calculate emissions from each batch (B) using the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.003
where:
n=the number of fermentation stages;
Es=emissions (measured in pounds) from stage s; and
Y=batch yield. ``Batch yield'' means a discrete quantity of yeast
produced from the last fermentation stage of a batch operation and is
expressed as tons of liquid yeast based on 30 percent solids.
(3) Calculate the calendar month average using the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.004
where:
Omonth=the number of batch operations in a calendar month;
and
Bn=emissions from batch n.
(c) If you monitor acetaldehyde using procedures under
Sec. 63.2141(d) and air flow using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(e),
you must record the acetaldehyde concentration and air-flow rate in
every fermenter's exhaust stack (or a correlated parameter.) Record
data as 15-minute block values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet
the following requirements:
(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.
(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.
(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.
(d) You meet the applicable emission standards in Sec. 63.2135(a)
if the calendar month average VOC emissions per ton of liquid yeast
produced is no more than the limits in Sec. 63.2135(a)(4) and (a)(5)
for each batch. You must calculate emissions using the equations in
paragraph (b) of this section, substituting acetaldehyde data for VOC
data, where appropriate.
Requirements for Incinerators
Sec. 63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?
(a) You must monitor and record the temperature in the main chamber
and afterburner at least once every 15 minutes.
(b) Make sure the monitoring equipment is installed and operating,
and verify the data, before or during the performance test. To verify
that your equipment is operating, you must meet at least one of the
following standards:
(1) The manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations
for installing, operating, and calibrating the system.
(2) Other written procedures that ensure reasonably accurate
monitoring.
(c) Install, operate, and maintain the monitoring equipment so it
gives you representative measurements of parameters from the regulated
sources.
Sec. 63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) First, you must establish the minimum operating temperature for
each combustion chamber and afterburner with a performance test under
procedures in Sec. 63.2142. The minimum operating temperature is the
average of the three test run values recorded under Sec. 63.2142(c).
(b) Second, you must ensure that the temperature in each combustion
chamber stays at or above the minimum operating temperature, based on
15-minute block values taken according to Sec. 63.2150.
Requirements for Biofiltration
Sec. 63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?
(a) You must monitor and record the pressure drop across the
biofiltration system at least once every 8 hours.
(b) You must maintain the pressure drop across the biofiltration
system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of the complying
pressure drop, or within the range of the complying values for pressure
drop established during your initial performance test. ``Complying
pressure drop'' means the pressure drop at which your system meets an
emission standard.
Sec. 63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the
standard?
(a) You must establish the complying pressure drop across the
system during a performance test, following procedures in Sec. 63.2142.
(b) For each biofiltration system, you may establish either of the
following:
(1) A range of complying pressure drops by conducting multiple
compliance performance tests.
(2) One complying pressure drop as the average pressure drop
measured over three test runs of a single performance test.
(c) The pressure drop across your system must stay within 5 percent
and 1 inch of the water column of the complying pressure drop, or range
established in your performance test.
Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring
Sec. 63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of
monitoring?
(a) Monitoring and recordkeeping. (1) Request and receive approval
from the Administrator to use other monitoring methods, following
Sec. 63.8(f).
(2) Use the approved alternate monitoring procedure so you
continuously meet the emission standard that applies to you.
(3) Comply with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements the
Administrator specifies.
(b) Compliance demonstrations. (1) Do an initial performance test
to show you meet the emission standard.
(2) During any performance test, you must show that your monitoring
method can determine whether your process controls or add-on controls
meet the emission standard that applies to you.
(3) Unless the Administrator specifies another schedule, test
performance once per year.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Sec. 63.2165 Which reports must I prepare?
(a) You must follow the notification procedures in Sec. 63.9 and
the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.10. If the Administrator hasn't
delegated authority under subpart E of this part to your State, you
must notify the EPA's appropriate regional office. If your State has
delegated authority, notify your State and send copy of each notice to
the appropriate EPA regional office. The regional office may waive this
requirement.
(b) Following the procedures in Sec. 63.9(h), within 60 days after
completing the relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in
Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, or 63.2156, notify the Administrator of your
initial compliance status. In the case of Sec. 63.2145, process
control, you must report at least three months worth of complying data.
(c) Annually, certify your compliance by reporting the following
information:
(1) How you determined compliance, including specific information
about the parameters you monitored and the methods you used to monitor
them.
(2) The results of your monitoring procedures or methods.
(3) How you will continue to comply including a description of
monitoring and reporting requirements and test methods.
(4) A statement attesting to whether your facility has complied
with this regulation, signed by a responsible official who shall
certify its accuracy.
[[Page 55831]]
Sec. 63.2166 What records must I maintain?
(a) In addition to meeting the recordkeeping requirements under
Sec. 63.10, you must record the following information in a daily log:
(1) Operation time for all control devices and monitoring
equipment.
(2) Details of all routine and other maintenance on all control
devices and monitoring equipment, including dates and duration of any
outages.
(3) The fermentation stage for which you're using each fermenter.
(b) You must also record the information required to support your
compliance demonstrations under Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, and 63.2156.
Sec. 63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?
You must keep all records available for inspection for at least 5
years--onsite for the most recent 2 years of operation. You may keep
records for the previous 3 years off site.
Delegation of Authorities
Sec. 63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under subpart E of this part, the Administrator will retain the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) [Reserved].
Sec. 63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 98-27700 Filed 10-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P