EPA FINALIZES

CASE-BY-CASE MACT (SECTION 112j) REQUIREMENTS

EPA is also requiring that sources that have previously filed applicability determination requests under 40 CFR §63.52(e)(2)(i) that are still pending must either:

 (1)      resubmit and supplement the applicability determination request within 60 days after EPA finalizes this rulemaking,

     or

(2)        (2)     resubmit and supplement the applicability determination request within 60 days after EPA publishes a proposed MACT standard for the source category or subcategory in question.

In the above case, the later date applies.  If the promulgation of any MACT standard is delayed, EPA has proposed extended compliance dates for applicability determinations and Part 2 applications.

For those sources that already have a case-by-case MACT determination under 112(g), EPA is proposing that these sources submit a request for an “equivalency determination” by the Part 2 application deadlines as proposed below.

Part 2 application should include the following:

1. Existing limitations for the affected source;

2. Identification of control technologies in place for the affected source;

3. Information relevant to establishing the MACT floor, and as an option, a recommended MACT floor;

4. Recommended emission limitations or requests for a specific design, equipment, work practice or operational standard as an emission limitation (optional);

5. Description of the control technologies that would be applied to meet the emission limitation (optional);

6. Description of the parameters to be monitored and frequency of monitoring to demonstrate continual compliance with the MACT emission limitation (optional).

Part 2 Application Due Dates

Startup, Shutdown, & Malfunction (SSM) Plans

EPA is requiring that SSM Plans be submitted to the permitting authority at the time that the Plan is first adopted and when it is substantially revised.  Revisions to the SSM Plans may be submitted with semiannual reports as required by 40 CFR §63.10(d)(5).

EPA believes that since SSM Plans are developed for MACT standards that are promulgated under the Clean Air Act, then the information contained in the Plans must be made available to the public.  Sources should note any confidential business information in the Plans and sensitive materials that could affect Homeland Security would also be entitled to confidential treatment.

If the permitting authority finds deficiencies in the SSM Plans, EPA is requiring that mandatory revisions to the Plans be made to correct these deficiencies. 

Recordkeeping/Reporting

The previous rule language in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) requires that for periodic SSM reporting, “the number, duration, and a brief description of each startup, shutdown and malfunction” be made.  EPA is reducing the reduce the recordkeeping/reporting burden on source owners.

EPA requires that sources periodically report information concerning malfunctions only, including the number, duration and type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period.  However, startups and shutdowns that do not follow the provisions of the SSM Plan and where emission limitations are exceeded remain subject to prompt reporting.

EPA defines “malfunction” as “any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.”  Those events meeting this definition would be subject to the reporting requirement.

 Author:  Kimberly D. Coy

Date:  Dec 2002

Updated:  Jan 2004

 Back to Articles