Search

Question of the Week: Hazardous Air Pollutants: Part 61 vs. Part 63

Posted on 8/9/2011 by James Griffin

Q. What is the difference between the “original” National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) of 40 CFR 61 and the “new” NESHAPs of 40 CFR 63?
 
A. Congress, through the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, required the EPA to identify Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) and promulgate standards for each HAP. Between 1971 and 1990, the EPA published emissions standards for each identified HAP in Part 61. But, in almost twenty years, the Agency only identified eight HAPs (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride).
 
This pace was too slow for Congress, so as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, they added a list of 189 HAPs to Section 112 of the CAA and gave EPA a specific schedule to issue final standards on sources of HAPs. Most of these Congressionally mandated HAPs were volatile organic compounds or toxic heavy metals.
 
That’s the history. What’s the difference in the standards themselves?
 
Standards in Part 61 apply based on the activity you are doing and what hazardous air pollutants that may emit (for example: demolition and renovation of old buildings may emit asbestos or fugitive emissions of benzene from storage tanks). If you are performing an activity identified in Part 61, you must perform whatever actions or implement whatever controls are required for that type of source to reduce your HAP emissions. If you do not perform any of the activities identified in Part 61, then Part 61 does not apply to you. [40 CFR 61.01(c)]
 
The more than 100 standards in Part 63 apply based on the industrial classification of your facility, not to specified activities, and are further broken down with alternative standards for “major sources” and “area sources.” [40 CFR 63.1(b)(1)]
 
A major source is one that emits or has the potential to emit ten (10) tons per year or more of any single HAP, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP (for example: lead smelters, dry cleaners, pulp and paper production). Major sources are supposed to use Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) in order to reduce their HAP emissions.
 
An area source is a facility that does not emit enough HAP to be a major source, but is specifically identified by the EPA in Part 63. Area sources are supposed to use Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) to control their HAP emissions. GACT is generally considered to be a less burdensome requirement than MACT.
 
If your facility is not a major source of HAPs, and is not specifically identified in Part 63 as an area source, then Part 63 does not apply to you.
 

Tags: Clean Air Act, EPA, reporting and recordkeeping

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

These are the best classes I attend each year. I always take something away and implement improvements at my sites.

Kim Racine

EH&S Manager

My experience with Lion training, both online and in the classroom, is that they are far better organized and provide a better sequential explanation of the material.

Robert Roose

Manager, Dangerous Goods Transportation

Amazing instructor; real-life examples. Lion training gets better every year!

Frank Papandrea

Environmental Manager

As always, Lion never disappoints

Paul Resley

Environmental Coordinator

The instructor was very very informative, helpful, understandable and pleasant. This course answered many questions I had, being new to this industry.

Frances Mona

Shipping Manager

Lion is at the top of the industry in compliance training. Course content and structure are updated frequently to make annual re-training enjoyable. I like that Lion has experts that I can contact for 1 year after the training.

Caroline Froning

Plant Chemist

I will never go anywhere, but to Lion Technology.

Dawn Swofford

EHS Technician

Very well structured, comprehensive, and comparable to live training seminars I've participated in previously. I will recommend the online course to other colleagues with training requirement needs.

Neil Luciano

EHS Manager

The instructor was very dedicated to providing a quality experience. She did her best to make sure students were really comprehending the information.

Stephanie Venn

Inventory Control Specialist

Best instructor ever! I was going to take my DOT training w/a different provider, but based on this presentation, I will also be doing my DOT training w/Lion!

Donna Moot

Hazardous Waste Professional

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Explore ten hazardous waste management errors that caused generators in California the most trouble last year.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.