[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23840-23873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05906]
[[Page 23839]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 66
April 4, 2024
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene
Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries
Reconsideration; Final Action; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 66 / Thursday, April 4, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 23840]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787; FRL-9846-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV80
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Ethylene Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing,
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries
Reconsideration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final action; reconsideration of final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or the Agency) finalized the residual risk and technology review (RTR)
conducted for the Ethylene Production source category, which is part of
the Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); on July 7,
2020, the EPA finalized the RTR conducted for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) NESHAP; and on August 12, 2020, the EPA
finalized the RTR conducted for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP. Amendments to the Petroleum Refinery Sector
NESHAP were most recently finalized on February 4, 2020. Subsequently,
the EPA received and granted various petitions for reconsideration on
these NESHAP for, among other things, the provisions related to the
work practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs), emergency
flaring, and degassing of floating roof storage vessels. This action
finalizes proposed amendments to remove the force majeure exemption for
PRDs and emergency flaring, incorporate clarifications for the
degassing requirements for floating roof storage vessels, and address
other corrections and clarifications.
DATES: This final action is effective on April 4, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 12, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. With the exception of such material, publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Michael Cantoni, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Mail Drop: E143-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O.
Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5593;
and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
atm-m3/mol atmospheres per mole per cubic meter
ACC American Chemistry Council
AFPM American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
AMEL alternative means of emissions limitation
API American Petroleum Institute
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
EMACT Ethylene Production MACT
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GMACT Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCPU miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHV net heating value
NOCS notification of compliance status
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
psi pounds per square inch
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR risk and technology review
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration
action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. Ethylene Production
B. Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
C. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
D. Petroleum Refineries
III. Final Action
A. Pressure Relief Devices and Emergency Flaring
B. Storage Vessel Degassing
C. Other EMACT Standards Technical Corrections and
Clarifications
D. Other OLD NESHAP Technical Corrections and Clarifications
E. Other MON Technical Corrections and Clarifications
F. Other Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 Technical Corrections and
Clarifications
G. What compliance dates are we finalizing?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
[[Page 23841]]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and
7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this action. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this action is likely to affect.
The final standards will be directly applicable to the affected
sources. Federal, State, local, and Tribal government entities are not
affected by this action. Each of the source categories covered by this
action were defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576; July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992),
as well as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Revision of Initial List of Categories of Sources and
Schedule for Standards Under Sections 112(c) and (e) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (61 FR 28197; June 4, 1996), as presented here.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethylene Production............. 40 CFR part 63, 325110.
subparts XX and
YY.
Organic Liquids Distribution 40 CFR part 63, 3222, 3241, 3251,
(Non-Gasoline). subpart EEEE. 3252, 3259, 3261,
3361, 3362, 3399,
4247, 4861. 4869,
4931, 5622.
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 40 CFR part 63, 3251, 3252, 3253,
Manufacturing. subpart FFFF. 3254, 3255, 3256,
and 3259, with
several
exceptions.
Petroleum Refineries............ 40 CFR part 63, 324110.
subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The Ethylene Production source category includes any chemical
manufacturing process unit in which ethylene and/or propylene are
produced by separation from petroleum refining process streams or by
subjecting hydrocarbons to high temperatures in the presence of steam.
The ethylene production unit includes the separation of ethylene and/or
propylene from associated streams such as a C4 product,\1\
pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene production
unit does not include the manufacture of Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) chemicals such as the production of
butadiene from the C4 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis
gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The C4 product stream is a hydrocarbon product
stream from an ethylene production unit consisting of compounds with
four carbon atoms (i.e., butanes, butenes, butadienes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) source category
includes, but is not limited to, those activities associated with the
storage and distribution of organic liquids other than gasoline, at
sites which serve as distribution points from which organic liquids may
be obtained for further use and processing. The distribution activities
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines.
Following the initial source category listings, the Agency combined
21 of the 174 originally defined source categories, and other organic
chemical processes which were not included in the original 174 source
category list, into one source category called the ``Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Processes'' source category.\2\ The Agency later
divided the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes'' source
category into two new source categories called the ``Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing'' source category and the
``Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing'' source category.\3\ The
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category includes
any facility engaged in the production of benzyltrimethylammonium
chloride, carbonyl sulfide chelating agents, chlorinated paraffins,
ethylidene norbornene, explosives, hydrazine, photographic chemicals,
phthalate plasticizers, rubber chemicals, symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine, oxybisphenoxarsine/1,3-diisocyanate, alkyd resins,
polyester resins, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate emulsions,
polyvinyl butyral, polymerized vinylidene chloride, polymethyl
methacrylate, maleic anhydride copolymers, or any other organic
chemical processes not covered by another maximum available control
technology (MACT) standard. Many of these organic chemical processes
involve similar process equipment, similar emission points and control
equipment, and are in many cases co-located with other source
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 61 FR 57602 (Nov. 7, 1996).
\3\ 64 FR 63035 (Nov. 18, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petroleum Refineries sector includes two source categories. The
Petroleum Refineries MACT 1 source category includes any facility
engaged in producing gasoline, naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels,
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. The refinery
process units in this source category include, but are not limited to,
thermal cracking, vacuum distillation, crude distillation,
hydroheating/hydrorefining, isomerization, polymerization, lube oil
processing, and hydrogen production. The Petroleum Refineries MACT 2--
Catalytic Cracking (Fluid and Other) Units, Catalytic Reforming Units,
and Sulfur Recovery Units source category includes any facility engaged
in producing gasoline, naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel
oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products from crude oil
or unfinished petroleum derivates.
[[Page 23842]]
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new,
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-black-hydrogen, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents
at these same websites.
Copies of all comments received on the proposed rulemaking
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene
Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries
Reconsideration) \4\ are available at the EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room. Comments are also available electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/ by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redline strikeout versions of each rule showing the edits that
incorporate the changes finalized in this action are presented in the
documents titled: Final Regulatory Text Edits for Subpart EEEE, Final
Regulatory Text Edits for Subpart FFFF, Final Regulatory Text Edits for
Subpart YY, and Final Regulatory Text Edits for Subpart CC, available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787).
II. Background
Following the EPA's finalization of the risk and technology reviews
for the Ethylene Production (or EMACT), Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) (OLD), and Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
(MON) NESHAP in 2020, the EPA also received petitions for
reconsideration of these actions. The EPA also received a petition for
reconsideration of the Petroleum Refinery Sector NESHAP raising some of
the same issues.
To address selected issues for which we granted reconsideration and
to provide other technical corrections, the EPA is finalizing revisions
to the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, and Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the work practice standards
for PRDs and emergency flaring related to force majeure provisions in
the EMACT standards, MON, and Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, and is
finalizing standards for the degassing of storage vessels in the EMACT
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. The EPA is also adding requirements for
pressure-assisted flares and mass spectrometers to the Petroleum
Refineries NESHAP to align this rule with other more recent chemical
sector rules and eliminate the need to request site-specific
alternative means of emission limitations (AMELs) for these units. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing other technical corrections,
clarifications, and correction of typographical errors in all rules. As
explained in the proposed rule, the EPA requested comment only on
specific issues identified in the document and explained that it would
not address other issues or provisions of these final rules not
specifically address in the proposed rule.
A. Ethylene Production
The MACT standards for the Ethylene Production source category
(herein called the EMACT standards) are contained in the Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (GMACT) NESHAP, which also
includes MACT standards for several other source categories. The EMACT
standards were promulgated on July 12, 2002,\5\ and codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subparts XX and YY. As promulgated in 2002, and further
amended,\6\ the EMACT standards regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from ethylene production units located at major sources. An
ethylene production unit is a chemical manufacturing process unit in
which ethylene and/or propylene are produced by separation from
petroleum refining process streams or by subjecting hydrocarbons to
high temperatures in the presence of steam. The EMACT standards define
the affected source as all storage vessels, ethylene process vents,
transfer racks, equipment, waste streams, heat exchange systems, and
ethylene cracking furnaces and associated decoking operations that are
associated with each ethylene production unit located at a major source
as defined in CAA section 112(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 67 FR 46258 (Jul. 12, 2002).
\6\ 70 FR 19266 (Apr. 13, 2005); 85 FR 40386 (Jul. 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of the EMACT standards in July 2020, the EPA
received two petitions for reconsideration in September 2020. The EPA
received a joint petition from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and
the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). The EPA also
received a petition from Earthjustice (on behalf of RISE St. James,
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Air Alliance Houston,
Community In-Power & Development Association, Clean Air Council, Center
for Biological Diversity, Environmental Integrity Project, and Sierra
Club). Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket for this
action (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0005 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0787-0006). ACC/AFPM's petition requested that the EPA reconsider
certain aspects of the final action including, among other things, the
storage vessel degassing provisions, ethylene cracking furnace burner
repair provisions, and ethylene cracking furnace isolation valve
inspections. Earthjustice's petition requested that the EPA reconsider
certain aspects of the final rule including, among other things, the
force majeure and exemption allowances in the work practice standards
for PRDs and emergency flaring. ACC/AFPM and Earthjustice also raised
other issues that are not addressed in this rulemaking.
On April 19, 2022, the EPA informed the petitioners, ACC/AFPM, and
Earthjustice that it would grant reconsideration of the provisions
addressing the work practice standards for PRDs, emergency flaring, and
degassing of floating roof storage vessels, under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B). The EPA also informed the petitioners of the continuing
review of all issues raised in their petitions. A copy of the letter to
the petitioners is available in the docket for this action (see Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0022).
The EPA proposed the reconsideration of the EMACT standards to
address these issues along with other technical corrections and
clarifications and requested public comment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of out-of-scope comments, this final preamble
provides summaries and responses to all comments received regarding the
proposed reconsideration of the EMACT standards. Comments on the
proposed
[[Page 23843]]
reconsideration of the EMACT standards that we consider out of scope
for this reconsideration rulemaking include comments on the standards
for PRDs and emergency flaring that discuss topics other than the force
majeure provisions.
B. Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
The Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (herein called OLD)
NESHAP is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.\8\ Organic liquids
are any crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer
and any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight
of any combination of the 98 HAP listed in table 1 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, as promulgated in
2004, and further amended,\9\ organic liquids do not include gasoline,
kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil),
asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and fuel oil, fuel that is consumed
or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast
water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual average true vapor
pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pounds per square inch (psi)).
Emission sources controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks,
transfer operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and
equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and sampling connections)
that have the potential to leak at major sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 69 FR 5038 (Feb. 3, 2004).
\9\ 71 FR 42898 (Jul. 28, 2006); 73 FR 21825 (Apr. 23, 2008); 73
FR 40977 (Jul. 17, 2008), and 85 FR 40740 (Jul. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration for the OLD
NESHAP in September 2020. The EPA received petitions from Stoel Rives
LLP (on behalf of Alyeska Pipeline Company), the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and AFPM, and Earthjustice (on behalf of California
Communities Against Toxics, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and
Sierra Club). Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket for
this rulemaking (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0015, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0787-0023, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0004). API/AFPM and Stoel
Rives LLP (on behalf of Alyeska Pipeline Company) requested that the
EPA reconsider its final action and specifically raised the issue of
storage vessel degassing. In their respective petitions, API/AFPM,
Stoel Rives, and Earthjustice also raised other issues that are not
being addressed in this rulemaking.
On September 8, 2021, the EPA informed petitioners Stoel Rives,
API/AFPM, and Earthjustice that it would grant reconsideration on
certain issues, including the work practice standards for storage
vessel degassing that apply broadly, under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
Other issues for which EPA granted voluntary reconsideration in the
September 8, 2021, letter (e.g., work practice standards for venting
from conservation vents on the Valdez Marine Terminal's crude oil fixed
roof tanks and fenceline monitoring) are still being reviewed and are
not part of this action. The EPA also stated in the letter to the
petitioners that it is continuing to review all issues raised in the
petitions. A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the
docket for this action (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0016).
On April 27, 2023, the EPA proposed to reconsider, and requested
comment on, the OLD NESHAP to address storage vessel degassing along
with other technical corrections and clarifications.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of out-of-scope comments, this final preamble
provides summaries and responses to all comments received regarding the
proposed reconsideration of the OLD NESHAP. Comments on the proposed
reconsideration of the OLD NESHAP that we consider out of scope for
this reconsideration rulemaking include comments on the standards for
PRDs and emergency flaring that discuss topics other than the force
majeure provisions and comments on requirements for temporary control
devices.
C. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
The NESHAP for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source category (herein called MON) is codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF.\11\ As promulgated in 2003, and further amended,\12\ the
MON regulates HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process units (MCPUs) located at major sources. A
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit (MCPU)
includes a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, as
defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i), and must meet the following criteria: it
manufactures any material or family of materials described in 40 CFR
63.2435(b)(1); it processes, uses, or generates any of the organic HAP
described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain process
vents that are part of a chemical manufacturing process unit, as
identified in 40 CFR 63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not an affected source
or part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63.
An MCPU also includes any assigned storage tanks and transfer racks;
equipment in open systems that is used to convey or store water having
the same concentration and flow characteristics as wastewater; and
components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, PRDs, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems that are used to manufacture any material or
family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1). Sources of HAP
emissions regulated by the MON include the following: process vents,
storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater streams, and
heat exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 68 FR 63852 (Nov. 10, 2003).
\12\ 70 FR 38562 (July 1, 2005); 71 FR 40316 (Jul. 14, 2006);
and 85 FR 49084 (Aug. 12, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of the MON in August 2020, the EPA received
five petitions for reconsideration between October and December 2020.
The EPA received petitions from the ACC (who submitted two petitions),
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Huntsman
Petrochemical, LLC, and Earthjustice (on behalf of RISE St. James,
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Air Alliance Houston, Ohio
Valley Environmental Coalition, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy
Reform, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, and Union of
Concerned Scientists). Copies of the petitions are provided in the
docket for this rulemaking (see Docket Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-
0007, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0009, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0010, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0787-0027, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0008). ACC's petitions
requested that the EPA reconsider certain aspects of the final rule
including, among other things, the storage vessel degassing provisions
and requirements for ethylene oxide sources. Earthjustice's petition
requested that the EPA reconsider certain aspects of the final rule
including, among other things, the force majeure and exemption
allowances for PRDs and emergency flaring. TCEQ, ACC, and Huntsman
Petrochemical's petitions requested that the EPA reassess the MON risk
assessment for issues around ethylene oxide risks. The EPA addressed
ACC, TCEQ, and Huntsman Petrochemical's
[[Page 23844]]
reconsideration petitions in a separate rulemaking.\13\ Earthjustice
and ACC also raised other issues that are not being addressed in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 87 FR 77985 (Dec. 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 17, 2021, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners informing
them that it is continuing to review all issues raised in the
petitions. A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the
docket for this action (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0017).
On April 27, 2023, the EPA proposed the reconsideration of the MON
to address these issues along with other technical corrections and
clarifications and requested public comment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of out-of-scope comments, this final preamble
provides summaries and responses to all comments received regarding the
proposed reconsideration of the MON. Comments on the proposed
reconsideration of the MON that we consider out of scope for this
reconsideration rulemaking include:
Comments on the standards for PRDs and emergency flaring
that discuss topics other than the force majeure provisions, including
releases from PRDs in ethylene oxide service and PRD monitoring.
Comments on surge control vessel or bottoms receiver
vents.
Comments on maintenance vent provisions.
Comments on conservation vent provisions.
D. Petroleum Refineries
The EPA finalized amendments to the petroleum refinery sector rules
as the result of an RTR.\15\ These amendments included, among other
provisions, adding work practice requirements to Petroleum Refinery
MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) for PRDs and flares in 40 CFR
63.648(j) and 63.670(o), respectively. These provisions specifically
provide requirements for owners and operators to follow in the event of
an atmospheric PRD release or emergency flaring event including
performing root cause analysis for each event and implementing
corrective action(s) in accordance with the rule requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 80 FR 75178 (Dec. 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received three petitions to reconsider the December 2015
final rule. Two petitions were filed on January 19, 2016, and February
1, 2016, jointly by API and the AFPM. In response to API/AFPM's January
19, 2016, petition for reconsideration, the EPA issued a proposal on
February 9, 2016,\16\ and a final rule on July 13, 2016.\17\ The third
petition was filed on February 1, 2016, by Earthjustice on behalf of
Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean
Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Community In-
Power & Development Association, the Del Amo Action Committee, the
Environmental Integrity Project, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the
Sierra Club, the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. In their petition,
Earthjustice claimed that several aspects of the revisions to the
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 were not proposed; therefore, the public was
precluded from commenting on the altered provisions during the public
comment period, including, among other provisions, the work practice
standard for PRDs and emergency flaring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 81 FR 6814 (Feb. 9, 2016).
\17\ 81 FR 45232 (Jul. 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 2016, the EPA informed petitioners it would grant
reconsideration on issues where petitioners claimed they had not been
provided an opportunity to comment. Subsequently, the EPA proposed the
reconsideration of the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 to address issues for
which reconsideration was granted in the June 16, 2016, letters.\18\
The EPA solicited public comment on five issues in the proposal related
to the work practice standard for PRDs, the work practice standard for
emergency flaring events, and the assessment of risk as modified based
on implementation of these PRD and emergency flaring work practice
standards. On February 4, 2020, the EPA issued a final action \19\
setting forth its decisions on each of the five issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 81 FR 71661 (Oct. 18, 2016).
\19\ 85 FR 6064 (Feb. 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 2020, Earthjustice submitted a petition for
reconsideration of the February 2020 final action on behalf of Air
Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air
Council, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Community In-Power &
Development Association, Del Amo Action Committee, Environmental
Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Utah Physicians for a
Healthy Environment (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0029).
The petition for reconsideration requested that the EPA reconsider five
issues in the February 4, 2020, final rule: (1) The EPA's rationale
that the PRD standards and emergency flaring standards are continuous;
(2) the EPA's rationale for the PRD standards under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3); (3) the EPA's rationale for separate work practice
standards for flares operating above the smokeless capacity; (4) the
EPA's rationale for risk acceptability and risk determination; and (5)
the EPA's analysis and rationale in its assessment of acute risk. The
EPA initially denied the April 6, 2020, petition for reconsideration
\20\ and provided detailed responses to each of the five issues raised
in the April 2020 petition in a September 3, 2020, letter, which is
available in the Petroleum Refinery rulemaking docket (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0999). After further consideration, on April
19, 2022, EPA informed petitioners that it would undertake
reconsideration on select provisions related to the work practice
standard for PRDs and emergency flaring (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0787-0003). Specifically, the EPA is reconsidering the
inclusion of the force majeure allowances in the PRD and emergency
flaring work practice standard. As noted in our April 19, 2022, letter,
we may reconsider additional issues in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 85 FR 67665 (April 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2023, the EPA proposed the reconsideration of
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 to address the PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standard along with other technical corrections and
clarifications and requested public comment.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of out-of-scope comments, this final preamble
provides summaries and responses to all comments received regarding the
proposed reconsideration of the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. Comments on
the proposed reconsideration of the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 that we
consider out of scope for this reconsideration rulemaking include
comments on the standards for PRDs and emergency flaring that discuss
topics other than the force majeure provisions.
III. Final Action
In this section of the preamble, the EPA sets forth its final
decisions on the issues for which reconsideration was granted and on
which the EPA solicited comment in the April 27, 2023, proposed
rule.\22\ We also present the Agency's rationale for the decisions. The
EPA is finalizing revisions to the work practice standards for PRDs and
emergency flaring related to force majeure provisions in the EMACT
[[Page 23845]]
standards, MON, and Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and is also finalizing
clarifications for the degassing of storage vessels in the EMACT
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. In addition, the EPA is finalizing
requirements for pressure-assisted flares and mass spectrometers in the
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 to align this rule with other more recent
chemical sector rules and to eliminate the need to request site
specific alternative means of emission limitations (AMELs) for these
units. Also, the EPA is finalizing other technical corrections,
clarifications, and correction of typographical errors in all rules.
The sections below provide a brief summary of each topic as well as
summaries and responses to the comments received on each topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 88 FR 25574 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Pressure Relief Devices and Emergency Flaring
Topic summary: Petroleum Refinery MACT 1, EMACT standards, and the
MON include work practice standards for PRDs and emergency flaring.
These provisions specifically provide requirements for owners and
operators to follow in the event of an atmospheric PRD release or
emergency flaring event including performing root cause analysis for
each event and implementing corrective action(s) in accordance with the
rule requirements. The atmospheric PRD release and emergency flaring
provisions specify the conditions which result in a violation of the
work practice standards. The owner or operator is required to track the
number of events by emission unit and root cause. An atmospheric PRD
release or emergency flaring event for which the root cause is
determined to be poor maintenance or operator error is a violation of
the WPS. Two atmospheric PRD releases or two emergency flaring events
from the same emission unit which are determined to be the result of
the same root cause in a 3-year period is a violation of the work
practice standard. Finally, three atmospheric PRD releases or three
emergency flaring events from the same emission unit regardless of the
root cause is a violation of the work practice standard (also referred
to as ``the `three strikes' provisions''). Notably, if the root cause
is determined to be due to a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR
63.641, 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2550, it does not count
towards the criteria for a violation of the WPS. However, in
reconsidering these provisions, the EPA has recognized that despite the
term force majeure being carefully defined, the force majeure allowance
in the work practice standards may present difficulties for determining
compliance. It may also represent a provision that some facility owners
or operators may seek to use to avoid incurring violations and pursuing
potentially disruptive corrective actions. During the root cause
analysis and corrective action process, owners or operators maintain
discretion when categorizing and reporting the root cause of
atmospheric PRD releases and emergency flaring events, thereby placing
the onus on the EPA to determine whether the definition of force
majeure was appropriately applied.
In light of these concerns, we reviewed periodic reports from
refineries in Texas and Louisiana obtained through the EPA Regional
Office (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0021 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0787-0025). Based on the data available, we concluded that the
frequency of these types of releases is lower than originally expected.
We also found that by removing the force majeure allowance, the rule is
strengthened, and compliance becomes easier to assess as it is
determined purely based on the count of events by emission unit and
root cause. As such, the EPA proposed to remove the force majeure
provisions from the PRD and emergency flaring work practice standards.
See section III.A. of the preamble to the proposed rule for additional
details.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 88 FR 25580 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: A commenter supported the proposed decision to remove
force majeure provisions from the PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standards. The commenter stated that the EPA's evaluation of
refinery periodic reports appropriately concluded the provisions are
not needed and that compliance with the provisions would become easier
for facilities and for the EPA to evaluate. The commenter further
stated the force majeure provisions should be removed because they are
unlawful and mean that an emission standard does not apply at all times
for PRDs and flaring. The commenter contended that to ensure that
standards apply at all times for PRDs, the EPA must specify that any
uncontrolled release from a PRD is a violation of the standard. For a
standard to apply at all times for flaring, the commenter asserted that
the EPA has not shown how a flare will comply with the net heating
value of the combustion zone limit and achieve 98 percent destruction
while smoking.
Other commenters opposed the proposed decision to remove force
majeure provisions from the PRD and emergency flaring work practice
standards. Some of these commenters argued that the EPA evaluated too
narrow of a dataset to identify force majeure events. They stated that
evaluating data over a longer period is necessary, due to the
infrequent nature of force majeure events. They also emphasized that
the review was not representative of all affected source categories,
because only data from petroleum refineries were analyzed. Furthermore,
one commenter contended that considering the frequency of events was
not an adequate basis for removing the provisions.
Some commenters stated it was not appropriate to remove the force
majeure provisions because these events are beyond the control of a
facility and a facility should not be held liable for PRD releases or
smoking flares during these events. A commenter argued that considering
the difficulty of enforcing the standard is not a rational basis to
remove force majeure provisions. The commenter also noted the fact that
few force majeure events were identified indicates that facilities are
not abusing the provisions. A commenter stated that removing the force
majeure provisions could create resource burdens for local authorities
if there is an increase in violations.
Response: After consideration of the comments submitted, the EPA is
finalizing the revisions as proposed and removing the force majeure
allowance from the criteria for a violation of the work practice
standards for atmospheric PRD releases and emergency flaring events.
Commenters indicated that the basis for the EPA's conclusion that the
force majeure exemption was rarely used was because it only took into
consideration three years of data. However, this 3-year period is the
period for which the work practice standards were in effect for
refineries and thus we believe that this is the best available data
from which to draw conclusions on the efficacy and necessity of the
elements of the work practice standards (Standards under CAA section
112 are to reflect emissions limitations ``for which the Administrator
has emissions information.''). Although some commenters indicate that
there were major weather events that could have caused relief events
from PRDs or flare smoking events, they did not provide any detailed
information on whether any PRD or flare smoking events actually
occurred from these weather events.
In addition, as the EPA has consistently explained, in the event
that a source fails to comply with the
[[Page 23846]]
applicable CAA section 112 standards, the EPA would determine an
appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during the violative
periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root
cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. Thus, while
this action removes the force majeure provisions from the PRD and
emergency flaring work practice standards, the EPA will continue to
evaluate violations on a case-by-case basis and determine whether an
enforcement action is appropriate. If the EPA determines in a
particular case that enforcement action against a source for violation
of a standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses
in that enforcement action and the federal district court will
determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for
citizen enforcement actions.
Regarding the comment that the work practice standards do not
provide continuous standards, we disagree with this comment. We have
previously addressed this issue and the EPA's position that the force
majeure provisions do not make the standards non-continuous has not
changed. We addressed this in the preamble to the proposed rule \24\
where we explained that we had previously addressed this in a September
2020 letter to Earthjustice (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0999). Components of both the PRD management provisions and emergency
flaring provisions apply at all times; not all components of the
standard must apply at all times for the standard to be continuous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 88 FR 25574, 25580 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, in this final action for Petroleum Refinery MACT 1, the
EPA is removing the force majeure allowance from the criteria for a
violation of the work practice standard for atmospheric PRD releases
and emergency flaring events in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) and 63.670(o)(7).
We are also amending the reporting requirements for the event-specific
work practice standard data in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iv) and (11)(iv) to
require these data to be reported electronically through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As further discussed in section III.G. of
this preamble, we are finalizing that the removal of the force majeure
provisions is effective 60 days after the effective date of the final
rule.
For flares, the EMACT standards and MON cross reference the
petroleum refinery flare provisions at 40 CFR 63.670. Therefore, the
revisions to 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7) for emergency flaring events are
incorporated into the requirements for these regulations.
The EPA is also revising the EMACT standards and the MON consistent
with our proposal. We are removing the force majeure allowance from the
criteria for a violation of the work practice standard for atmospheric
PRD releases in 40 CFR 63.1107(h)(3) and 63.2480(e)(3) going forward.
However, we are not removing the term force majeure from the list of
defined terms in 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(2) and 63.2550. As further discussed
in section III.G. of this preamble, we are finalizing that the removal
of the force majeure provisions is effective 60 days after the
effective date of the final rule. Lastly, the EPA is finalizing new
reporting requirements for the EMACT standards at 40 CFR
63.1110(a)(10)(iii) to require electronic reporting, through the CDX
using CEDRI, of the event-specific work practice standard data in 40
CFR 63.1110(e)(4)(iv) and 63.1110(e)(8)(iii). We note that the MON
already has a more general compliance report template for electronic
reporting, see 40 CFR 63.2520(e), which will automatically incorporate
electronic reporting of the event-specific work practice standard data.
B. Storage Vessel Degassing
Topic summary: The EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON currently
include a work practice standard for storage vessel degassing to
control emissions from shutdown operations (see 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(10),
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6), and 40 CFR 63.2470(f), respectively). An
opportunity to comment on the storage vessel degassing provisions was
not previously provided because, based on comments received for all
three rules, the provisions were included in the final 2020 rules but
not in the rules proposed in 2019. Therefore, the EPA re-proposed in
2023 what was finalized for each rule in 2020. The EPA also proposed
additional revisions based on petitioners' arguments to address
degassing of floating roof storage vessels. The requirements, as
finalized in the 2020 rules, allow storage vessels to be vented to the
atmosphere once a storage vessel degassing concentration threshold is
met (i.e., less than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL)) and
all standing liquid has been removed from the vessel to the extent
practicable. The requirements are applicable to all storage vessels
(regardless of roof type) that are subject to control requirements in
each of the rules. We based the degassing standard on Texas permit
conditions, which represented the MACT floor.\25\ Specifically, permit
condition 6 (applicable to floating roof storage vessels) and permit
condition 7 (applicable to fixed roof storage vessels) formed the basis
of the storage vessel degassing standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Texas Permit Conditions are available at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/Guidance/NewSourceReview/mss/chem-mssdraftconditions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners stated that while they did identify the Texas
permit conditions as a reference in their comments to the 2019 proposed
rules, certain key information was not incorporated into the final 2020
EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON for the degassing of floating roof
storage vessels. Additionally, the petitioners argued that they did not
request additional work practices for floating roof storage vessels for
which owners and operators already elect to comply with the floating
roof storage vessels requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW
because, even with the removal of the shutdown exemption, the
petitioners contended that it is still possible to comply with the
subpart WW provisions.
The EPA disagreed with the petitioners' claims that a separate
standard for floating roof storage vessel degassing is not needed due
to the removal of the shutdown exemption. Rather, we determined that we
must set a storage vessel degassing standard that applies to storage
vessels under CAA section 112. We also determined that storage vessel
degassing is a unique shutdown activity with operations and emissions
that are completely different from normal storage vessel operations,
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW does not address degassing emissions
from floating roof storage vessels.
Because the EPA determined that a standard is necessary for
degassing of all storage vessels (regardless of roof type), the EPA
reviewed the Texas permit conditions again to determine if revisions to
the degassing standard for floating roof storage vessels in the EMACT
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON are appropriate. Based upon this review,
we proposed and are now finalizing that a floating roof storage vessel
may be opened prior to degassing to set up equipment (i.e., make
connections to a temporary control device), but this must be done in a
limited manner and operators must not actively purge the storage vessel
while connections are made. See section III.B. of the preamble to the
proposed rule for additional details on the storage vessel degassing
revisions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 88 FR 25581 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23847]]
Comments: Several commenters supported the storage vessel degassing
requirements in the 2023 proposal, including having a separate
requirement for floating roof storage vessels. However, some commenters
requested clarification on certain aspects of the rule text. A
commenter requested clarification on whether the phrase ``must not be
actively degassed'' (from the rule text) and ``not actively purge''
(from the preamble) have the same meaning for floating roof storage
vessels. The commenter also requested confirmation that breathing
emissions following a floating roof landing and before commencing
degassing operations are not a deviation of the standard. A commenter
stated that not providing a timeframe for degassing creates ambiguity
and encouraged the EPA to use the same 24-hour window as the Texas
permit conditions for consistency. Another commenter recommended the
EPA incorporate a requirement based on the maintenance vent standard,
which would allow active purging if the pressure in the storage vessel
is 2 pounds per square inch gauge or less. A commenter recommended that
the EPA incorporate additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for storage vessel degassing, such as recording and reporting
information from the vapor space concentration measurements. A
commenter also requested the EPA further define degassing.
Response: After consideration of the comments submitted, we are
finalizing the storage vessel degassing requirements as proposed,
including the separate requirement for floating roof storage vessels.
We do confirm that the phrase ``must not be actively degassed'' (from
the rule text) and ``not actively purge'' (from the preamble) have the
same meaning for purposes of the floating roof storage vessel degassing
provisions. We are also aware that the Texas permit condition 6.B
provides a 24-hour window to start controlled degassing after the
floating roof storage vessel has been drained, and that the storage
vessel may be opened during this period only to set up for degassing
and cleaning. However, we determined at proposal that the 24-hour
window stipulates how long a floating roof storage vessel can be landed
before it needs to be filled again or degassed, but it does not have a
direct bearing on the underlying control standard for degassing
operations. As such, we are not revising the final rule to incorporate
the 24-hour window into the storage vessel degassing standard.
We agree with the commenter that emissions as a result of vapor
space expansion (i.e., breathing emissions) following landing of a
floating roof and prior to commencing degassing operations do not
constitute a bypass or deviation of the standards. We note that this
work practice standard for storage vessel degassing applies ``during
storage vessel shutdown operations (i.e., emptying and degassing of a
storage vessel).''
We also do not agree that incorporating a requirement similar to
the maintenance vent standard is appropriate for storage vessel
degassing. The intent of the standard is to control degassing emissions
to the level of the MACT floor, which in this case is the use of
controls to minimize emissions until the vapor space concentration
reaches 10 percent of the LEL.
We do not believe that additional clarity on the definition of
degassing is warranted as this process is well understood. Storage
vessel degassing has always been in the rules as part of the definition
of ``Shutdown'' (i.e., Shutdown also applies to emptying and degassing
storage vessels). In addition, there have been many commenters on each
of the rules over the past four years providing feedback regarding
storage vessel degassing; during this time no clarifications regarding
the definition of degassing were needed.
We are finalizing clarifications to the storage vessel degassing
standards for the EMACT standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(10), the OLD
NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6), and the MON at 40 CFR 63.2470(f).
We also want to clarify that the overlap provisions in the MON and
OLD NESHAP for storage vessels do not apply with respect to
demonstrating compliance with the storage vessel degassing
standards.\27\ While these overlap provisions (e.g., 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb; 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y) do include storage vessel
standards that facilities subject to the MON and OLD NESHAP may comply
with for storage vessels during normal operation, they do not include
an equivalent alternative standard to the storage vessel degassing
standards that were finalized in 2020 and that are being clarified in
this final action. As such, facilities subject to the MON and OLD
NESHAP must always comply with the storage vessel degassing standards
included therein even if complying with these overlap provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The EMACT standards require owners or operators to comply
specifically with the EMACT standards where overlap may exist for
various storage vessel control requirements (see 40 CFR
63.1100(g)(1)); thus, it is not necessary to clarify that the
storage vessel degassing standards always apply in this NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Other EMACT Standards Technical Corrections and Clarifications
The EPA is finalizing additional revisions for the EMACT standards
that address other technical corrections and clarifications and correct
typographical errors. We received comments on some of the revisions
that were proposed for the EMACT standards. In this section, we provide
comment summaries and responses for the EMACT standards topics where
comments were received. We also include revisions to the EMACT
standards that were not proposed but for which commenters provided
technical clarifications to the rule and the EPA is finalizing. Table 2
of this preamble shows the revisions to the EMACT standards for which
no comments were received, and that the EPA is finalizing as proposed.
Although we briefly summarize these items below, refer to section
III.C.1. of the preamble to the proposed rule for additional
details.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 88 FR 25582 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic summary, delay of burner repair provisions (40 CFR
63.1103(e)(7)(i)): A petitioner argued that requiring an ethylene
cracking furnace to implement the delay of burner repair provisions
finalized in the 2020 final rule is impracticable and is inconsistent
with what the best performers are doing. The petitioner stated that a
significant amount of preparation is needed to shutdown an ethylene
cracking furnace and that no source can comply with the delay of burner
repair provisions as written. Accordingly, where a burner cannot be
repaired without an ethylene cracking furnace shutdown, owners or
operators would have to decoke their ethylene cracking furnaces
immediately (i.e., within 1 day of identifying flame impingement),
leading to more decoking events and subsequently more emissions from
the decoking of ethylene cracking furnaces.
An opportunity to comment on the delay of burner repair provisions
was not previously provided because the provisions were included in the
final 2020 rule but not in the 2019 proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA
re-proposed at 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(7)(i) what was finalized along with
the following revisions for delay of burner repair.
The EPA proposed to remove the requirement that the owner or
operator may only delay burner repair beyond 1 calendar day if a
shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the potential
emissions from delaying repair. We agreed that this requirement
[[Page 23848]]
if left in place would lead to more decoking events and more emissions
from decoking of ethylene cracking furnaces. Instead of evaluating
emissions to determine whether delay of repair is allowed, the EPA
proposed that delay of repair beyond 1 calendar day is allowed if the
repair cannot be completed during normal operations, the burner cannot
be shutdown without significantly impacting the furnace heat
distribution and firing rate, and action is taken to reduce flame
impingement as much as possible during continued operation. We also
maintained that if a delay of repair is required to fully resolve
burner flame impingement, repair must be completed following the next
planned decoking operation (and before returning the ethylene cracking
furnace back to normal operation) or during the next ethylene cracking
furnace complete shutdown (when the ethylene cracking furnace firebox
is taken completely offline), whichever is earlier.
Comments: A few commenters supported the proposed revision to the
ethylene cracking furnace delay of burner repair requirements. They
indicated that the proposed language provided needed flexibility.
However, some of the commenters recommended additional revisions to the
language to add specificity regarding when burner repair is allowed.
Specifically, the commenters asked for an allowance to delay repairs
until the next planned shutdown if a complete furnace shutdown is
required to complete the repair.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that additional
allowances for burner repair are warranted and are finalizing the
revisions as proposed. We proposed the revisions to the delay of repair
language to provide flexibility and acknowledge the industry's general
practice for burner inspection and repair. However, allowing facilities
to protract burner repair to a further point in time, which may be
years in the future for the next ethylene cracking furnace complete
shutdown, goes against the purpose of the burner inspection and repair
provisions which is to stop flame impingement and minimize decoking
emissions. Additionally, the decoking of ethylene cracking furnaces has
always been included in the definition of Shutdown in the regulatory
text of the EMACT standards and has always been considered a shutdown
operation. The EPA is finalizing the delay of burner repair provisions
as proposed and owners or operators must repair the burner following
the next decoking event or complete shutdown, whichever is earlier.
Topic summary, isolation valve inspection and repair (40 CFR
63.1103(e)(8)(i)): A petitioner requested that the EPA revise the
requirement to rectify poor isolation prior to continuing decoking
operations. The petitioner argued that certain isolation valve repairs
must be completed after the ethylene cracking furnace is shutdown,
which consequently requires decoking the ethylene cracking furnace. The
petitioner said that if a furnace is not decoked prior to shutdown,
damage can occur to the furnace tubes and could pose a safety issue. In
addition, the petitioner noted that some isolation valves serve gas
streams from multiple ethylene cracking furnaces, and there may be
instances when all furnaces would need to be decoked and shutdown to
properly rectify the isolation valve issue. The petitioner argued that
allowing for some flexibility is necessary for facilities to operate
properly and to avoid damaging equipment.
We agreed with the petitioner and proposed language at 40 CFR
63.1103(e)(8)(i) to allow facilities to wait and rectify isolation
valve issues after a decoking operation, provided that the owner or
operator can reasonably demonstrate that damage to the radiant tube(s)
or ethylene cracking furnace would occur if the repair was attempted
prior to completing a decoking operation and/or prior to the ethylene
cracking furnace being shutdown.
Comments: Some commenters supported the proposed revision to the
ethylene cracking furnace isolation valve inspection and repair
requirements. They indicated that the proposed language was consistent
with industry practices. The commenters also recommended additional
revisions to emphasize that the company must be able to make the
determination regarding whether to delay repair if the radiant tubing
or ethylene cracking furnace could be damaged.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support and is
revising the proposed language in response to the comments. We agree
that the owner or operator does not need to directly demonstrate to the
regulating authority that damage would occur to the radiant tubes or
ethylene cracking furnace before using the allowance to delay repair.
We are clarifying in 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(8)(i) that the owner or operator
can make the determination that damage could occur in order to avail
themselves of this delay of repair allowance.
Topic summary, removal of electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR
63.1100(b), 63.1103(e)(4)(iii), and 63.1110(a)(10)(i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv)): Instructions for submitting reports electronically through
CEDRI, including instructions for submitting CBI and asserting a claim
of EPA system outage or force majeure, were recently added to 40 CFR
63.9(k); \29\ therefore, text related to these requirements was no
longer necessary in the EMACT standards. As such, we removed
duplication and pointed directly to 40 CFR 63.9(k) when required to
submit certain reports to CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 85 FR 73885 (Nov. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A commenter agreed with the revisions to point to 40 CFR
63.9(k) directly, but also stated that an additional reference to this
citation is warranted in 40 CFR 63.1100(b).
Response: We agree with the commenter and are referencing 40 CFR
63.9(k) in the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.1100(b). We are also
finalizing the edits at 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(4)(iii) and
63.1110(a)(10)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), as proposed.
Topic summary, LEL clarification (40 CFR 63.1103(e)(5),
63.1103(e)(10), 63.1109(f), 63.1110(e)(5)): These provisions reference
the term ``LEL'' for the purposes of determining compliance. We did not
propose revisions for this term, but commenters provided feedback
stating that it was being misused.
Comments: Commenters stated that we were misusing the term LEL in
certain rule provisions for maintenance vents and storage vessel
degassing (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(5), 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(10)).
Commenters stated the LEL was a fixed physical property of a vapor
mixture and thus, is neither changed nor measured. According to
commenters, LEL refers to a specific concentration value for a
particular mixture. For example, when opening a maintenance vent,
commenters elaborated that you measure the concentration of the vapor
and then you can compare that concentration to the LEL. The commenter
thought the rule text incorrectly implied that you measured the LEL of
the vapor. The commenters requested that the EPA clarify that the
concentration of the vapors in equipment for maintenance vents (and the
vapor space concentration for storage vessel degassing) must be less
than 10 percent of the LEL and that facilities are to measure the
concentration, not the LEL.
Response: We agree with commenters that the rule text referring to
the LEL was used incorrectly for certain
[[Page 23849]]
maintenance vent and storage vessel degassing provisions and that the
LEL cannot be changed for a vapor. We are revising the rule text to
make clear that facilities measure the vapor concentration and then
compare that concentration value to the LEL of the vapor to determine
if the concentration is less than 10 percent of the LEL.
Table 2--Summary of Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY for Which
the EPA Received No Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue summary Final revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.1110(e)(4)(iii)..... Provision The EPA is replacing
contains a ``Sec.
typographical 63.1109(e)(7)'' with
error. ``Sec.
63.1109(e)(6)'' to
correct the
typographical error.
40 CFR 63.1102(c)(11), Provisions The EPA is replacing
(d)(2)(ii), and (e)(2)(iii). contain a ``Sec.
typographical 63.1108(a)(4)(i)''
error. with ``Sec.
63.1108(a)(4)'' to
correct a
typographical error
that we made while
removing startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction
exemptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Other OLD NESHAP Technical Corrections and Clarifications
There are additional revisions that we are finalizing for the OLD
NESHAP to address other technical corrections and clarifications and to
correct typographical errors. We did not receive comments on all of the
revisions that were proposed for the OLD NESHAP. Table 3 of this
preamble shows the revisions to the OLD NESHAP for which no comments
were received and the EPA is finalizing as proposed. Table 4 of this
preamble shows revisions to the OLD NESHAP which were not proposed but
where commenters provided technical clarifications to the rule, which
the EPA is finalizing. Refer to section III.C.2. of the preamble to the
proposed rule for additional details.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 88 FR 25584 (Apr. 27, 2023).
Table 3--Summary of Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE for Which
the EPA Received No Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue summary Final revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6)........ Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. ``items 3 through 6
of table 2 to this
subpart'' with
``items 2 through 6
of table 2 to this
subpart'' to
correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2346(e)........... Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. ``storage vessels''
with ``storage
tanks'' to correct
the typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2378(e)(3)........ Provision needing The EPA is adding
technical the word
clarifications. ``planned'' in
front of ``routine
maintenance'' in
the last sentence
of the provision in
order to further
clarify the
provision only
applies to periods
of planned routine
maintenance. We are
also replacing
``storage vessel''
with ``storage
tank'' in the last
sentence of the
provision to
correct a
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2378(e)(4)........ Provision needing To create
technical consistency in the
clarifications. time period during
which the bypass
provision applies
(i.e., the level of
material in the
storage vessel must
not be increased
during the same
time period that
breathing loss
emissions bypass
the fuel gas system
or process), we are
deleting ``to
perform routine
maintenance'' from
the last sentence
of 40 CFR
63.2378(e)(4). We
are also replacing
``storage vessel''
with ``storage
tank'' in the last
sentence of the
provision to
correct a
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2382(d)(3); Provisions needing The EPA is removing
63.2386(f), (g), (h), (i), technical duplication and
and (j); and 63.2406. clarifications or pointing directly
removal. to 40 CFR 63.9(k)
when required to
submit certain
reports to CEDRI.
Specifically,
instructions for
submitting reports
electronically
through CEDRI,
including
instructions for
submitting CBI and
asserting a claim
of EPA system
outage or force
majeure, were
recently added to
40 CFR 63.9(k) (85
FR 73885; November
19, 2020);
therefore, text
related to these
requirements was no
longer necessary in
the OLD NESHAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23850]]
Table 4--Summary of Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE That Were
Not Proposed But Are Being Finalized Based on Commenter Input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue summary Final revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6)........ In comments on the While commenters did
EMACT standards, not specifically
MON, and Petroleum point out revisions
Refinery MACT 1, to the OLD NESHAP,
commenters stated we are finalizing
that we were revisions to 40 CFR
misusing the term 63.2346(a)(6) for
LEL in certain rule consistency.
language provisions Specifically, we
for maintenance are clarifying that
vents and storage the owner or
vessel degassing. operator must
See the comment determine the
summary and concentration of
response in section the vapor space as
III.C. of this opposed to
preamble for determining the LEL
additional details. of the vapor space.
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Provisions needing 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) is
Part 63. technical not cited in the
clarifications. general provisions
applicability
table. We are
referencing 40 CFR
63.7(a)(4) in this
table and stating
it applies to the
OLD NESHAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Other MON Technical Corrections and Clarifications
This section of the preamble presents revisions we are finalizing
to the MON heat exchange system requirements along with additional
revisions that we are finalizing for the MON to address other technical
corrections and clarifications and to correct typographical errors. We
did not receive comments on some of the revisions that were proposed
for the MON. In this section, we provide comment summaries and
responses for the MON topics where comments were received. We also
include revisions to the MON which were not proposed but where
commenters provided technical clarifications to the rule, which the EPA
is finalizing. Following this, table 5 of this preamble shows the
revisions to the MON for which no comments were received, and the EPA
is finalizing as proposed. We briefly summarize these items below; see
section III.C.3. of the preamble to the proposed rule for additional
details.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 88 FR 25584 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic summary, leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange
systems with soluble HAP (40 CFR 63.2490(e)): In May 2021, EPA Region 4
received a request from Eastman Chemical Company to perform alternative
monitoring instead of the Modified El Paso Method to monitor for leaks
in Eastman's Tennessee Operations heat exchange systems, which
primarily have cooling water containing soluble HAP with a high boiling
point (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787-0028). Eastman
requested that the previous water sampling requirements for heat
exchange system leaks provided in the MON, which ultimately references
40 CFR 63.104(b) (i.e., use of any EPA-approved method listed in 40 CFR
part 136 as long as the method is sensitive to concentrations as low as
10 parts per million (ppm) and the same method is used for both
entrance and exit samples), be allowed for cooling water containing
certain soluble HAP in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method.
Eastman specifically identified two HAP, 1,4-dioxane and methanol,
which do not readily strip out of water using the Modified El Paso
Method. Eastman's application for alternative monitoring included
experimental data showing that the Modified El Paso Method would likely
not identify a leak of these HAP in heat exchange system cooling water.
Based upon a review of the information provided by Eastman, we proposed
that water sampling of heat exchange systems may be used but only if 99
percent by weight or more of all the organic compounds that could
potentially leak in the cooling water have a Henry's Law Constant less
than a certain threshold (i.e., 5.0E-6 atmospheres per mole per cubic
meter (atm-m\3\/mol) at 25[deg] Celsius). See section III.C.3. of the
preamble to the proposed rule for additional details.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 88 FR 25584 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Some commenters supported the proposed revisions to allow
for water sampling of heat exchange systems, instead of the Modified El
Paso Method, in limited instances. However, each of the commenters also
argued that the EPA must revise the proposed language to add
specificity regarding the compounds for which the water sampling
alternative could be used. The commenters stated that the requirement
should only apply to heat exchange systems with 99 percent by weight or
more of organic HAP compounds that meet certain thresholds instead of
just 99 percent by weight or more of organic compounds that meet
certain thresholds. The commenters contended that because the rule
serves to identify leaks of HAP, specifying that the threshold applies
only to organic HAP is necessary. The commenters were concerned the
proposed revisions could lead to expenditures fixing leaks that do not
contain HAP. A commenter also requested the EPA clarify whether small
heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute or less are required to use the Modified El Paso Method.
Response: After considering the comments submitted, the EPA is
finalizing the monitoring revisions as proposed to allow for water
sampling of heat exchange systems in limited instances. We disagree
with the commenters' request to revise the language to specify ``HAP''
compounds for the 99 percent by weight requirement. The proposed
revisions do not impact what heat exchangers are subject to monitoring;
rather they help determine what type of monitoring is allowed (i.e.,
Modified El Paso Method or water sampling), and the existing language
already includes specificity regarding HAP compounds. The definition of
heat exchange system states that the heat exchange system must be in
organic HAP service (i.e., contain at least 5 percent by weight of
total organic HAP) in order to be subject to the heat exchange system
monitoring requirements. Additionally, 40 CFR 63.104(b) is clear that
owners and operators must monitor for ``the presence of one or more
organic hazardous air pollutants or other representative substances
whose presence in cooling water indicates a leak.'' The introductory
text of 40 CFR 63.2490(e), which says: ``you may monitor the cooling
water for leaks according to the requirements in Sec. 63.104(b) in
lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method,'' is also only intended to
specify what type of monitoring is required.
Regarding small heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow
rate of 10 gallons per minute or less, we believe that further
clarification to the rule is not needed. The 10 gallons per
[[Page 23851]]
minute threshold provided in 40 CFR 63.2490(d) only applies to the
Modified El Paso Method monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.2490(d).
As such, heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow rate of 10
gallons per minute or less are still subject to the requirements of 40
CFR 63.104, as they have been historically, and must continue complying
as they always have.
In summary, the EPA is finalizing at 40 CFR 63.2490(e) that the
leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems at 40 CFR
63.104(b) may be used in limited instances (i.e., if 99 percent by
weight or more of all the organic compounds that could potentially leak
into the cooling water have a Henry's Law Constant less than 5.0E-6
atmospheres per mole per cubic meter (atm-m\3\/mol) at 25[deg] Celsius)
instead of using the Modified El Paso Method to monitor for leaks.
While we are finalizing that the leak monitoring and leak definition
requirements at 40 CFR 63.104(b) may be used in limited instances, we
did not propose nor finalize that other provisions of 40 CFR 63.104
apply. Instead, for example, facilities that use water sampling to
detect leaks must still comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(16) and 40 CFR 63.2525(r). We are
finalizing revisions at 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(16) and 40 CFR 63.2525(r) to
specify this.
Topic summary, PRDs with rupture disks (40 CFR 63.2480(e)(2)(ii)
and (e)(2)(iii)): For PRDs with rupture disks, a petitioner pointed out
that EPA agreed in their response to comment document (see docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746-0200 in the MON RTR docket) to delete the second
sentence (i.e., the requirement to conduct monitoring if rupture disks
are replaced) from 40 CFR 63.2480(e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii). However,
the final rule (85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020) did not reflect these
deletions. We agreed that the language diverges from what 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU required for PRDs. Therefore, we proposed to correct
this error by deleting the second sentence from 40 CFR
63.2480(e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii).
Comments: A commenter supported the proposed revision to the
monitoring requirements for PRDs with rupture disks and stated the
revision provides consistency with other rules.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support, and we are
finalizing the revisions as proposed.
Topic summary, scrubber testing and monitoring requirements (40 CFR
63.2493(a)(2)(vi) and (b)(4)): A petitioner requested clarification of
scrubber monitoring parameters and the types of scrubbers that are
applicable to certain requirements at 40 CFR 63.2493(a)(2)(vi) and
(b)(4). The petitioner stated that the rule is only applicable to
scrubbers that use an acid solution and reactant tank, but that other
types of scrubbers are used in instances when ethylene oxide is present
in small amounts. The petitioner requested the pH monitoring parameter
be revised to account for other types of scrubbers. The petitioner also
requested the temperature of the ``scrubber liquid'' be monitored
instead of the temperature of the ``water.''
Scrubbers that use an acid solution and reactant tank are the
primary focus of the scrubber monitoring requirements because this type
of scrubber liquid is necessary to specifically control ethylene oxide.
As such, we did not propose to revise the monitoring parameters to
apply more broadly, such as to scrubbers that use water as the
scrubbing liquid. We proposed clarifying language that the monitoring
requirements at 40 CFR 63.2493(a)(2)(vi) and (b)(4) are applicable to
scrubbers ``with a reactant tank.'' We agreed with the petitioner
regarding temperature monitoring and proposed a correction that the
temperature of the ``scrubber liquid'' must be monitored. We also
proposed clarifying language at 40 CFR 63.2493(a)(2)(viii) and (b)(6),
that if a facility uses a scrubber without a reactant tank that
provides control of ethylene oxide, the facility may establish site-
specific operating parameters.
Comments: Commenters supported the proposed revision to the
scrubber testing and monitoring requirements for scrubbers controlling
ethylene oxide. In addition, a commenter recommended that the EPA only
allow scrubbers with reactant tanks and acid solutions to control
ethylene oxide. Another commenter also requested that the EPA allow any
scrubber to control ethylene oxide by developing site-specific
operating parameters, regardless of the amount of control the scrubber
provides. This commenter stated they understood the proposal allows for
site-specific operating parameters only if the scrubber provides
incidental control of ethylene oxide.
Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support and are finalizing
the revisions as proposed. The EPA notes that in the proposed
regulatory text changes for the MON, we did not use the phrase
``incidental control.'' We are clarifying provisions at 40 CFR
63.2493(a)(2)(viii) and (b)(6), which would allow an owner or operator
who uses a scrubber without a reactant tank to request appropriate
operating parameters from the Administrator. In the preamble of the
proposed rule, we noted that this option would be available to
facilities using scrubbers for incidental control, because it is likely
that a scrubber needing to control a significant quantity of ethylene
oxide emissions would need to be equipped with a reactant tank. It is
unlikely that a water scrubber could provide adequate control of
significant ethylene oxide emissions.
Consistent with our long-standing approach of allowing regulated
industries to determine how to meet numeric emission limits, the EPA is
not requiring the use of acid scrubbers for the control of ethylene
oxide. Currently, scrubbers with acid solutions are likely the only
scrubber technology that can achieve significant control of ethylene
oxide; however, we also acknowledge that there are some facilities with
ethylene oxide emissions that are very low and almost meet the outlet
concentration limit without control. These owners and operators should
be able to use any control device that can allow them to achieve the
emission standard. Additionally, there could be a development of new
scrubbing technologies for ethylene oxide in the future that use a
configuration other than acid solutions and a reactant tank. We do not
want to limit the development of these technologies by limiting the
control devices that owners and operators must use.
Topic summary, storage tank ethylene oxide concentration (40 CFR
63.2492(b)): A petitioner requested that an alternative to sampling and
analysis of storage tank materials should be allowed, to determine if a
storage tank is in ethylene oxide service. The petitioner stated that
information already exists for some storage tanks to show that the
ethylene oxide concentration in the material stored is less than 0.1
percent by weight (sometimes significantly so) and that it is
unnecessary to require sampling and analysis. We agreed with the
petitioner and proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.2492(b) to allow
calculations to be performed to show that the ethylene oxide
concentration is less than 0.1 percent by weight of the material stored
in the storage tank, provided the calculations rely on information
specific to the material stored. This may include using, for example,
specific concentration information from safety data sheets.
Comments: Commenters supported the proposed revision to allow
calculations to determine the ethylene oxide concentration of the fluid
stored in a storage tank. A commenter also
[[Page 23852]]
recommended that the EPA expand this requirement and allow the use of
engineering judgement and process knowledge to determine the
concentration, similar to what is allowed to determine the ethylene
oxide content for equipment leaks.
Another commenter did not support the proposed revision to allow
calculations to determine the ethylene oxide concentration of the fluid
stored in a storage tank. The commenter argued that calculations
introduce uncertainty and are often underestimated.
A commenter also noted that proposed 40 CFR 63.2492(b)(i) and
(b)(ii) should be renumbered to 40 CFR 63.2492(b)(1) and (b)(2).
Response: We are finalizing the revisions to allow calculations to
determine the ethylene oxide concentration of the fluid stored in a
storage tank as proposed. We disagree with the commenter's request to
add more flexibility to the alternative approach in 40 CFR
63.2492(b)(2) for storage tanks to be consistent with the equipment
leaks provision at 40 CFR 63.2492(c)(2). The rule is already clear
regarding determining whether storage tanks are ``in ethylene oxide
service.'' In order to determine the requirements for storage tanks in
ethylene oxide service, facilities must look at both the definition of
``in ethylene oxide service'' and the requirements in 40 CFR 63.2492
together. The definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' lets the
owner or operator designate a storage tank based on process knowledge;
however, if an owner or operator wants to say a storage tank is not in
ethylene oxide service, they must use the procedures in 40 CFR
63.2492(b). The rule at 40 CFR 63.2492(b)(2) already explicitly allows
for an owner or operator to calculate the concentration of ethylene
oxide of the fluid stored in a storage tank if information specific to
the fluid stored is available which includes data based on safety data
sheets.
We do agree with the commenter that the proposed numbering was
incorrect and are finalizing the revisions at 40 CFR 63.2492(b)(1) and
(b)(2).
We are also changing the phrasing of ``sampling and analysis is
performed as specified in Sec. 63.2492'' to ``the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.2492 are performed'' within the definition of ``in ethylene
oxide service'' for storage tanks. This language more clearly aligns
with the revised requirements at 40 CFR 63.2492(b).
Topic summary, delay of repair provisions for equipment in ethylene
oxide service (40 CFR 63.2493(d)(1)(iii) and 63.2493(d)(2)(iii)): A
petitioner requested the EPA clarify whether delay of repair provisions
apply to equipment in ethylene oxide service. The petitioner noted that
in the response to comments for the final rule, the EPA stated that
delay of repair provisions do not apply. However, the petitioner
further noted the final rule language did not reflect this. We proposed
to revise 40 CFR 63.2493(e) to specify that the delay of repair
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts H and UU and 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F do not apply for all equipment in ethylene oxide service.
Comments: Commenters did not support the proposed revision to
remove the delay of repair provisions for equipment in ethylene oxide
service. The commenters contended that removing the delay of repair
provisions would increase emissions, because the emissions due to
shutdowns can be higher than the leak emissions due to invoking delay
of repair. This is particularly true if few components are leaking. A
commenter emphasized that companies consider both worker safety and
emissions when evaluating leaks and noted some companies have ambient
air monitors for ethylene oxide. The commenters stated the number of
components in ethylene oxide service that leak is low, and that this is
supported by data submitted by chemical manufacturing facilities (which
are similar to MON facilities) to the EPA which indicated no leaking
connectors, valves, or pumps in ethylene oxide service. The commenters
also stated the delay of repair provisions provide important
flexibility for companies and allow them to operate without disruptions
to their operations.
Another commenter supported the proposed revision to remove the
delay of repair provisions for equipment in ethylene oxide service.
Response: We partly erred when stating at proposal that the MON
included delay of repair provisions for equipment in ethylene oxide
service. The final 2020 MON included specific repair requirements for
pumps and connectors in ethylene oxide service at 40 CFR
63.2493(d)(1)(iii) and 63.2493(d)(2)(iii), respectively. These
requirements stipulated that a leak must be repaired within 15 days
after it is detected. No exceptions were provided for the 15-day
timeframe, which means there were no exceptions for delay of repair.
Other equipment in ethylene oxide service (e.g., valves) do not have
ethylene oxide-specific requirements in the MON like connectors and
pumps, and it was our intent that delay of repair provisions still
apply for this other equipment (i.e., reducing ethylene oxide emissions
from connectors and pumps was determined to be necessary for the 2020
rule, and thus delay of repair was not provided for them). As such, we
are not revising the MON to exclude delay of repair provisions for
equipment other than connectors and pumps in ethylene oxide service and
are not finalizing the revision that was proposed at 40 CFR
63.2493(e)(17). We are maintaining the existing requirements at 40 CFR
63.2493(d)(1)(iii) and 63.2493(d)(2)(iii), with one additional
revision. We are finalizing a revision that allows for the delay of
repair for connectors and pumps in ethylene oxide service if the
equipment is isolated from the process and does not remain in ethylene
oxide service.
Topic summary, LEL clarification (40 CFR 63.2450(v), 63.2470(f),
63.2520(e)(14), 63.2525(p)): Maintenance vent and storage vessel
degassing provisions reference the term LEL to determine compliance. We
did not propose revisions to this term, but commenters provided
feedback stating it was being misused.
Comments: Commenters stated that we were misusing the term LEL in
certain rule language provisions for maintenance vents and storage
vessel degassing (e.g., 40 CFR 63.2450(v), 40 CFR 63.2470(f)).
Commenters stated the LEL was a fixed physical property of a vapor
mixture and thus does not change nor is it measured. It refers to a
specific concentration value for a particular mixture. For example,
commenters explained that, when opening a maintenance vent, the
concentration of the vapor is measured and then compared to the LEL.
The rule text incorrectly implied that the LEL of the vapor is
measured. The commenters requested that the EPA clarify that the
concentration of the vapors in equipment for maintenance vents (and the
vapor space concentration for storage vessel degassing) must be less
than 10 percent of the LEL and that facilities are to measure the
concentration, not the LEL.
Response: We agree with commenters that the rule text referring to
the LEL was used incorrectly for certain maintenance vent and storage
vessel degassing provisions and that the LEL cannot be changed for a
vapor. We are revising the rule text to be clear that facilities
measure the vapor concentration and then compare that concentration
value to the LEL of the vapor to determine if the concentration is less
than 10 percent of the LEL.
[[Page 23853]]
Table 5--Summary of Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFF for Which
the EPA Received No Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue summary Final revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(6)(i)..... Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. the reference to 40
CFR 63.148(h)(3)
with a reference to
40 CFR 63.148(i)(3)
to correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(7)........ A petitioner The EPA is
requested that the clarifying that 40
EPA clarify whether CFR 63.2470(c)(3),
certain adsorber 40 CFR
provisions 63.2520(d)(6) and
referenced within (e)(13), 40 CFR
40 CFR 63.983 and 63.2525(o), and the
other related provisions
requirements and referenced within
exceptions (i.e., 40 CFR 63.983 all
40 CFR apply (in addition
63.2470(c)(3), 40 to 40 CFR
CFR 63.2520(d)(6) 63.2450(e)(4) and
and (e)(13), and 40 (e)(6)) if
CFR 63.2525(o)) facilities reduce
apply to this organic HAP
paragraph. The emissions by
petitioner also venting emissions
pointed out that it through a closed-
is not clear vent system to an
whether a adsorber(s) that
supplement to the cannot be
notification of regenerated or a
compliance status regenerative
(NOCS) report is adsorber(s) that is
needed, and if regenerated
necessary, what offsite. We are
information should also clarifying in
be provided. 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(1) that
40 CFR
63.2450(e)(1) does
not apply when
complying with 40
CFR 63.2450(e)(7).
As part of this
clarification, we
are also finalizing
a new requirement
at 40 CFR
63.2520(d)(6) for
adsorbers subject
to the requirements
of 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(7)
requiring a
supplement to the
NOCS report within
150 days after the
first applicable
compliance date. We
are finalizing that
the supplement to
the NOCS report
must describe
whether the
adsorber cannot be
regenerated or is a
regenerative
adsorber(s) that is
regenerated
offsite; and
specify the
breakthrough limit
and adsorber bed
life that was
established during
the initial
performance test or
design evaluation
of the adsorber.
Finally, we are
revising the
introduction
paragraph of 40 CFR
63.2520 as well as
the requirement in
40 CFR 63.2515(d)
to update the
reference to 40 CFR
63.2520(d)(6).
40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)........ Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. the phrase ``in
paragraphs
(c)(9)(i) through
(vi) of this
section'' with ``in
paragraphs
(c)(9)(i) through
(iv) of this
section'' to
correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2480(a)........... Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. the phrase ``For
each light liquid
pump, valve, and
connector in
ethylene oxide
service'' with
``For each light
liquid pump,
pressure relief
device, and
connector in
ethylene oxide
service'' to
correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(iii).. Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. ``Sec.
63.181(b)(2)(i)''
with ``Sec.
63.181(b)(3)(i)''
to correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(vi)... A petitioner We agree with the
contended that the petitioner that the
reference to provision should be
information revised to clarify
required to be that the reporting
reported under 40 requirement is
CFR specific to the
63.182(d)(2)(xiv) recently
is too broad and promulgated PRD
should be more requirements.
narrowly described Therefore, we are
as ``information in finalizing language
Sec. 63.165(a) that reads ``The
required to be information in Sec.
reported under 40 63.165(a)
CFR required to be
63.182(d)(2)(xiv)'' reported under 40
in order to clarify CFR
that the reporting 63.182(d)(2)(xiv)
requirement is is now required to
specific to the be reported under
recently Sec.
promulgated PRD 63.2520(e)(15)(i)
requirements. through (iii).''
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(x).... Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. ``Sec.
63.1022(a)(1)(v)''
with ``Sec.
63.1023(a)(1)(v)''
to correct the
typographical
error.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(xiii). A petitioner We agree with the
contended that the petitioner that the
reference to provision should be
information revised to clarify
required to be that the reporting
reported under 40 requirement is
CFR 63.1039(b)(4) specific to the
is too broad and recently
should be more promulgated PRD
narrowly described requirements.
as ``information in Therefore, we are
Sec. 63.1030(b) finalizing language
required to be that reads ``The
reported under 40 information in Sec.
CFR 63.1039(b)(4)'' 63.1030(b)
in order to clarify required to be
that the reporting reported under 40
requirement is CFR 63.1039(b)(4)
specific to the is now required to
recently be reported under
promulgated PRD Sec.
requirements. 63.2520(e)(15)(i)
and (ii).''
40 CFR 63.2493(b)(2)........ A petitioner We agree with the
requested that the petitioner that 40
EPA include CFR 63.2493(b)(2)
introductory only applies if the
language to clarify facility chooses to
that the route emissions to
requirements apply a non-flare control
only if the device and chooses
facility chooses to to comply with the
route emissions to 1 ppmv standard via
a non-flare control CEMS. Therefore, we
device and chooses are adding
to comply with the introductory text
1 parts per million at 40 CFR
volume (ppmv) 63.2493(b)(2) that
standard via clarifies this.
continuous emission
monitoring systems
(CEMS).
40 CFR 63.2493(d)(3)........ A petitioner We agree with the
contended that the petitioner to
reference to revise the
``affected source'' provision for
should be revised consistency with
to ``MCPU'' to be Table 6 to Subpart
consistent with the FFFF of part 63;
second column of therefore, we are
Table 6 to Subpart replacing
FFFF of Part 63. ``affected source''
with ``MCPU''.
40 CFR 63.2493(d)(4)(v)..... Provision contains a The EPA is replacing
typographical error. ``Sec.
63.2445(h)'' with
``Sec.
63.2445(i)'' to
correct the
typographical
error.
[[Page 23854]]
40 CFR 63.2520(d)........... A petitioner pointed We acknowledge there
out that the EPA was an
indicated in the inconsistency in
preamble to the what we said in the
final rule (85 FR preamble about
49084; August 12, electronic
2020) that reporting NOCS
electronic reports versus what
reporting is we required in the
required at 40 CFR 2020 final rule.
63.2520(d) for the However, the
NOCS report; inconsistency is
however, the final irrelevant because
rule does not in this rulemaking,
contain this we are finalizing
requirement. The at 40 CFR
petitioner 63.2520(d) to
requested that the require NOCS
EPA clarify that reports be
this was a submitted
misstatement in the electronically
preamble language through the EPA's
and that the NOCS CDX CEDRI. The
report is not requirement to
required to be submit NOCS reports
submitted electronically will
electronically. increase the ease
and efficiency of
data submittal and
data accessibility.
40 CFR 63.2525(o)........... A petitioner In the 2020 final
requested that the rule, we
EPA update the inadvertently did
recordkeeping not revise the
requirements for recordkeeping
adsorbers that requirements to
cannot be reflect the
regenerated and for associated
regenerative monitoring
adsorbers that are requirements in 40
regenerated offsite CFR 63.2450(e)(7)
to reflect the (for adsorbers that
monitoring cannot be
requirements in the regenerated and for
final rule (85 FR regenerative
49084; August 12, adsorbers that are
2020). regenerated
Specifically, the offsite). We are
petitioner correcting this by
requested that the revising 40 CFR
EPA revise 40 CFR 63.2525(o)(1) and
63.2525(o)(1) to (2) and removing
require that you the requirement at
must keep records 40 CFR
of the breakthrough 63.2525(o)(4) in
limit and bed life its entirety, as
for each adsorber recommended by the
established petitioner.
according to 40 CFR However, we are not
63.2450(e)(7)(i); revising 40 CFR
revise 40 CFR 63.2525(o)(3) as
63.2525(o)(2) to requested by the
require that you petitioner. We are
keep records of keeping the
each outlet HAP or language of 40 CFR
TOC concentration 63.2525(o)(3) as-
measured according is, which aligns
to 40 CFR with the language
63.2450(e)(7)(ii) used in 40 CFR
and (e)(7)(iii); 63.2450(e)(7)(iii)(
and revise 40 CFR B).
2525(o)(3) to
require records of
the date and time
each adsorber is
replaced. The
petitioner also
requested the EPA
remove the
requirement at 40
CFR 63.2525(o)(4)
in its entirety.
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(2)........ Provision contains a The EPA is
typographical error. correcting the
spelling of
``paragraph.''
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5)(iv), Provisions needing The EPA is removing
63.2520(e), (f), (g), (h), technical duplication and
and (i). clarifications or pointing directly
removal. to 40 CFR 63.9(k)
when required to
submit certain
reports to CEDRI.
Specifically,
instructions for
submitting reports
electronically
through CEDRI,
including
instructions for
submitting CBI and
asserting a claim
of EPA system
outage or force
majeure, were
recently added to
40 CFR 63.9(k) (85
FR 73885; November
19, 2020),
therefore, text
related to these
requirements is no
longer necessary in
the MON.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Other Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 Technical Corrections and
Clarifications
There are additional revisions that we are finalizing for the
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 to address other technical corrections and
clarifications and to correct typographical errors. Refer to section
III.C.4. of the preamble to the proposed rule for the additional
details.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 88 FR 25587 (Apr. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue summary, pressure-assisted flares (40 CFR 63.641, 63.655, and
63.670): We proposed amendments to Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 that are
consistent with flaring provisions in other recent rules (i.e., EMACT
standards) that adopted the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 flare
requirements but addressed additional issues, such as adding provisions
for pressure-assisted flares. The proposed amendments include adding
pressure-assisted flares to the definition of the term ``flare'' in 40
CFR 63.641 and adding appropriate requirements for pressure-assisted
flares in 40 CFR 63.670. These amendments are consistent with the EPA's
intention that all types of flares, including pressure-assisted flares,
are covered by the provisions in Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. The
proposed amendments for pressure-assisted flares include pilot flame
standards and requirements for cross-lighting in 40 CFR 63.670(b),
pressure monitoring in 40 CFR 63.670(d)(3), higher combustion zone
operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670(e), and requirements to use only the
direct calculation methods for determining the flare vent gas net
heating value according to 40 CFR 63.670(l)(5)(ii). We also proposed
reporting and recordkeeping requirements specific to pressure-assisted
flares in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(11)(iii) and (i)(9)(vi), respectively.
Comment: Two commenters supported the proposed revisions for
pressure-assisted flare requirements. A commenter stated the proposed
revisions would reduce burden on the regulated facilities, permitting
authorities, and the EPA. Another commenter requested clarification on
whether existing AMELs would be affected and whether owners and
operators could still request an AMEL in the future.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support and we are
finalizing the revisions as proposed. We confirm that owners and
operators can still request an AMEL to demonstrate appropriate flare
combustion efficiency, if so desired by an owner or operator. The
proposed revisions did not impact the AMEL requirements of 40 CFR
63.670(r). We also confirm that existing AMELs are unaffected by the
proposed revisions to the NESHAP requirements.
Topic summary, flare gas composition monitoring requirements (40
CFR 63.671): To provide additional flexibility to the monitoring
requirements for flare gas composition as required by 40 CFR 63.670(j),
we proposed to add mass spectrometry as a method in 40 CFR 63.671. The
current provisions in 40 CFR 63.671 could be interpreted to suggest
that gas chromatographs must be used for flare
[[Page 23855]]
gas compositional analysis. This was not our intent. We recognize that
there are some methods, like mass spectrometry, which can determine
flare gas composition without the use of a gas chromatograph. We
proposed to add specific requirements for calibration and operation of
mass spectrometers that parallel the requirements for gas
chromatographs.
Comment: One commenter provided specific rule text edits to
multiple provisions within 40 CFR 63.671(e) and (f). The commenter
recommended including language specific to ``gas chromatograph'' in 40
CFR 63.671(e); adding reference to the seven-day calibration error test
period in 40 CFR 63.671(e)(4); stipulating that net heating value (NHV)
calculations must use individual component properties in Table 12 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart CC in 63.671(e)(4)(ii); removing ``without the use
of gas chromatography'' in 40 CFR 63.671(f); adding specificity on
using low, mid, and high-level calibration gas cylinders in 40 CFR
63.671(f)(2); and revising the calibration requirements for ``net
heaving value by mass spectrometer'' in Table 13 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC.
Response: First, we noted that there was no difference between the
regulatory language from the commenter and the proposed rule revisions
for 40 CFR 63.671(e), therefore no changes were considered for this
provision.
Next, we considered the commenter recommended revisions to 40 CFR
63.671(e)(4). It appears this suggested revision is intended to clarify
that consistent with Performance Specification 9, an initial
calibration error test must occur over a 7-day period followed by daily
calibration with mid-level calibration standard for each analyte and
quarterly performance audits. We have finalized clarifying language in
40 CFR 63.671(e)(4) consistent with our understanding of the
commenter's intent as follows, ``The owner or operator must initially
determine the average instrument calibration error the during the 7-Day
Calibration Error Test Period and subsequently perform daily
calibration and quarterly audits using either the compound-specific
calibration error method provided in paragraph (i) of this section or
using the NHV method provided in paragraph (ii) of this section.''
The commenter also suggested a clarifying edit to the definition of
equation term ``NHV measured'' to specify that NHV calculations are to
be made based on the individual component properties listed in Table
12. We find that the suggested edit improves clarity that the
individual components and respective properties are contained in Table
12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and have finalized this edit
consistent with the commenter's suggestion.
We are not finalizing any amendments to the proposed new
introductory paragraph in 40 CFR 63.671(f) as per the commenter's
recommendation to strike ``without the use of gas chromatography.''
This language provides the clarification that the provisions in 40 CFR
63.671(f) are limited in applicability to continuous mass spectrometers
that do not use gas chromatography. We are, however, finalizing the
commenter's recommended revision to 40 CFR 63.671(f)(2) to add the
characterizing language (i.e., low-, mid-, high-) relative to the
calibration gas cylinders as this language is consistent with
Performance Specification 9 specific in sections 7.1.1-7.1.3.
Finally, we are finalizing the proposed amendments to Table 13 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, as proposed, by cross referencing
Performance Specification 9 rather than referring to the requirements
in 40 CFR 63.671(e)(4) and (f). Performance Specification 9 includes
additional requirements than are listed in 40 CFR 63.671(e)(4) and (f).
For example, in section 10.2 of Performance Specification 9, if the
instrument average response varies by more than 10 percent of the
certified concentration value of the cylinder for an analyte, the owner
or operator must immediately inspect the instrument making any
necessary adjustments and conduct an initial multi-point calibration in
accordance with section 10.1. We intended for affected sources to
comply fully with the calibration and quality control requirements in
Performance Specification 9 and thus are maintaining the cross
reference in Table 13 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
Topic summary, Alternate Test Method for flare fuel measurements
(40 CFR 63.671(e)): The EPA approved an Alternate Test Method to use
NHV in place of component heat content (i.e., British thermal units
``BTU'') for select quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC flare fuel measurements (herein referred to as ALT-131) in December
2018. See 84 FR 7363, 7364 (March 4, 2019).
Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA clarify whether the
ability to use this approved Alternate Method 131 is affected by this
rulemaking.
Response: We confirm that the approval of ALT-131 will be
unaffected by this rulemaking and facilities can continue to utilize
ALT-131 for compliance with flare measurement requirements in 40 CFR
63.671(e) and by reference, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance
Specification 9 (PS 9) for determining NHV.
Topic summary, LEL clarification (40 CFR 63.643(c), 63.655(g)(13),
63.655(i)(12)): Maintenance vent provisions reference the term LEL to
determine compliance. We did not propose revisions to this term but
commenters provided feedback stating it was being misused.
Comments: Commenters stated that we were misusing the term LEL in
certain rule language provisions for maintenance vents (e.g., 40 CFR
63.643(c)(1)). Commenters stated the LEL was a fixed physical property
of a vapor mixture and thus does not change nor is it measured. It
refers to a specific concentration value for a particular mixture. For
example, when opening a maintenance vent, commenters elaborated that
you measure the concentration of the vapor and then you can compare
that concentration to the LEL. The rule text incorrectly implied that
the LEL of the vapor is measured. The commenters requested that the EPA
clarify that the concentration of the vapors in equipment for
maintenance vents must be less than 10 percent of the LEL and that
facilities are to measure the concentration, not the LEL.
Response: We agree with commenters that the rule text referring to
the LEL was used incorrectly for certain maintenance vent and storage
vessel degassing provisions and that the LEL cannot be changed for a
vapor. We are revising the rule text to be clear that facilities
measure the vapor concentration and then compare that concentration
value to the LEL of the vapor to determine if the concentration is less
than 10 percent of the LEL.
G. What compliance dates are we finalizing?
We are finalizing new compliance dates for certain revisions to the
EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, and Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. We did
not propose new compliance dates for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP,
and MON because the rules that were promulgated in 2020 had still not
come into full effect at the time of proposal in April 2023. The
compliance dates were also not stayed as part of this reconsideration
action. The compliance dates for the 2020 rules have now passed and
owners and operators must have been complying with the EMACT standards
by July 6, 2023, the OLD NESHAP by July 7, 2023, and the MON by August
12, 2023. Most of the revisions we are finalizing do not
[[Page 23856]]
impose substantial new requirements, but rather either provide clarity
to the rules for owners and operators or are alternative requirements.
As such, we are providing new compliance dates for the EMACT standards,
OLD NESHAP, and MON for revisions related to the removal of the force
majeure provisions only and are not changing the compliance dates for
any other revisions to these rules.
For the removal of the force majeure provisions from the PRD and
emergency flaring work practice standards for each rule and for most
actions that we are finalizing for the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1, we
are positing that facilities would need some time to successfully
accomplish these revisions, including time to read and understand the
amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that
they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown, as
defined in the rule; and to make any necessary adjustments, including
adjusting standard operating procedures and converting reporting
mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for
compliance with the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of
60 days after the effective date of the final rule to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable. Therefore, for the EMACT
Standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, and Petroleum Refinery MACT 1, we are
finalizing that the force majeure provisions shall be fully removed
from the PRD and emergency flaring work practice standards as of 60
days after the effective date of the final rule. For the Petroleum
Refinery MACT 1, we are also finalizing that affected sources must be
in compliance with most other revisions upon initial startup or within
60 days of the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later.
We are finalizing that petroleum refinery owners or operators may
comply with the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares
upon initial startup or by the effective date of the final rule,
whichever is later. We believe that compliance with the flare
requirements immediately upon finalizing the rule is necessary to
ensure that pressure-assisted flares are appropriately operated.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
In our final RTRs, we estimated the following:
There are 26 facilities subject to the EMACT standards that are
currently operating and five additional facilities under construction.
A complete list of known facilities in the EMACT standards is available
in Appendix A of the memorandum, Review of the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse Database for the Ethylene Production Source Category (see
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0357-0008 in the EMACT RTR docket).
There are 173 OLD NESHAP facilities currently operating and four
additional OLD NESHAP facilities under construction. A complete list of
known OLD NESHAP facilities is available in Appendix A of the
memorandum, National Impacts of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746-0069 in the OLD
NESHAP RTR docket).
There are 201 MON facilities currently operating. A complete list
of known MON facilities is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0746-0011 in the MON RTR docket).
Additionally, based on the Energy Information Administration's 2021
Refinery Capacity Report, there are 129 operable petroleum refineries
in the United States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories, all of which are
expected to be major sources of HAP emissions.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We did not estimate baseline emissions or emissions reductions for
the revisions. None of the revisions have a direct and quantifiable
impact on emissions because they are minor revisions to existing
requirements.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We expect minimal to no cost impacts due to the revisions. There
could be minor costs for affected facilities related to reading the
rule, making minor updates to operating procedures in some limited
cases, and making minor adjustments to reporting systems. A few
revisions provide slightly greater flexibility and could yield minor
cost savings. Any potential costs or cost savings are expected to be
negligible.
D. What are the economic impacts?
No economic impacts are anticipated due to the revisions because
any potential cost impacts are expected to be very minor.
E. What are the benefits?
The proposed revisions are not expected to yield air quality
benefits because emissions will not be affected. However, the revisions
should improve clarity, monitoring, compliance, and implementation of
the rules for the affected source categories.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
The revisions are not expected to impact emissions and therefore we
did not conduct an environmental justice analysis. However,
environmental justice analyses were conducted for the final 2020 rules
for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 85 FR 40415 (Jul. 6, 2020); 85 FR 40757 (Jul. 7, 2020); and
85 FR 49129 (Aug. 12, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, or the
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. We finalized certain technical revisions,
including new electronic reporting provisions for the PRD and emergency
flaring work practice standard, but the technical revisions do not
result in changes to the information collection burden. The final
amendments require facilities to submit the work practice related data
using an EPA provided spreadsheet template electronically through CDX
using CEDRI. These data would not be expected to also be included in a
facility's submission to the delegated State authority and/or EPA
Regional Office such that no duplication is expected. The amendments to
the mode of reporting of the work practice
[[Page 23857]]
standard-related data are not expected to change the current burden
under the PRA and we did not revise the information collection request
(ICR) for the rules. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection activities contained in
the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0489; 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and has
assigned OMB control number 2060-0539; 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0340.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are already
identified in the 2020 final rules for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP,
MON, and the 2015 final rule for Petroleum Refineries. The amendments
to 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC, YY, EEEE, and FFFF would only minimally
change the existing requirements for all entities. There could be minor
costs for affected facilities related to reading the final rule, making
minor updates to operating procedures in some limited cases, and making
minor adjustments to reporting systems. A few revisions provide
slightly greater flexibility and could yield minor cost savings. Any
potential costs or cost savings are negligible.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the annual cost does
not exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial new direct effects
on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has decided
to use Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, 25,
25A, 27, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 301, 316, and 320 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A; and 602 and 624 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix
A.
While the EPA identified candidate VCS as being potentially
applicable, the Agency decided not to use the VCS identified. The use
of voluntary consensus standards for measuring emissions of pollutants
or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not
be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional
information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: for Ethylene Production,
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries, which is
available in the docket for this action.
The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this
document and were previously approved for the locations in which they
appear: SW-846-5031, SW-846-8260D, and SW-846-5030B.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human
health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated
with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on
communities with environmental justice concerns. As discussed in
section IV.F. of this preamble, the revisions are not expected to
impact emissions, and thus, no changes to human health or environmental
conditions are expected.
Although this action does not concern human health or environmental
conditions, the EPA identified and addressed environmental justice
concerns when conducting analyses for the final 2020 rules for the
EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. Further information regarding
these environmental justice analyses is available at 85 FR 40415 (July
6, 2020), 85 FR 40757 (July 7, 2020), and 85 FR 49129 (August 12,
2020), respectively.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 23858]]
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries
0
2. Amend Sec. 63.641 by revising the entry ``Flare'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.641 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flare means a combustion device lacking an enclosed combustion
chamber that uses an uncontrolled volume of ambient air to burn gases.
For the purposes of this rule, the definition of flare includes, but is
not necessarily limited to, pressure-assisted flares, air-assisted
flares, steam-assisted flares, and non-assisted flares.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.643 by revising and republishing paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.643 Miscellaneous process vent provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, process liquids are removed
from the equipment as much as practical and the equipment is
depressured to a control device meeting requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) or (2) of this section, a fuel gas system, or back to the
process until one of the following conditions, as applicable, is met.
(i) The concentration of the vapor in the equipment served by the
maintenance vent is less than 10 percent of its lower explosive limit
(LEL).
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the concentration of the
vapor in the equipment based on the design of the equipment, the
pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to
5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or less. Upon opening the
maintenance vent, active purging of the equipment cannot be used until
the concentration of the vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the
equipment if the maintenance is a hatch or similar type of opening) is
less than 10 percent of its LEL.
(iii) The equipment served by the maintenance vent contains less
than 72 pounds of total volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(iv) If the maintenance vent is associated with equipment
containing pyrophoric catalyst (e.g., hydrotreaters and hydrocrackers)
and a pure hydrogen supply is not available at the equipment at the
time of the startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection activity, the
concentration of the vapor in the equipment must be less than 20
percent of its LEL, except for one event per year not to exceed 35
percent of its LEL.
(v) If, after applying best practices to isolate and purge
equipment served by a maintenance vent, none of the applicable
criterion in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section can be
met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment
blind, the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is
reduced to 2 psig or less. Active purging of the equipment may be used
provided the equipment pressure at the location where purge gas is
introduced remains at 2 psig or less.
(2) Except for maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator must
determine the concentration of the vapor or, if applicable, equipment
pressure using process instrumentation or portable measurement devices
and follow procedures for calibration and maintenance according to
manufacturer's specifications.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.648 by revising paragraphs (j)(3)(iv), (j)(3)(v)(B)
and (C), (j)(6) introductory text, and (j)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.648 Equipment leak standards.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The owner or operator shall determine the total number of
release events that occurred during the calendar year for each affected
pressure relief device separately. Prior to June 3, 2024, the owner or
operator shall also determine the total number of release events for
each pressure relief device for which the root cause analysis concluded
that the root cause was a force majeure event, as defined in this
subpart.
(v) * * *
(B) Prior to June 3, 2024, a second release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3
calendar year period for the same root cause for the same equipment. On
and after June 3, 2024, a second release event from a single pressure
relief device in a 3 calendar year period for the same root cause for
the same equipment.
(C) Prior to June 3, 2024, a third release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3
calendar year period for any reason. On and after June 3, 2024, a third
release event from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar year
period for any reason.
* * * * *
(6) Root cause analysis and corrective action analysis. A root
cause analysis and corrective action analysis must be completed as soon
as possible, but no later than 45 days after a release event. Special
circumstances affecting the number of root cause analyses and/or
corrective action analyses are provided in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) Prior to June 3, 2024, you may conduct a single root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis for a single emergency event
that causes two or more pressure relief devices to release, regardless
of the equipment served, if the root cause is reasonably expected to be
a force majeure event, as defined in this subpart.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.655 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text, (g)(10) introductory
text, (g)(10)(iv), (g)(11) introductory text, (g)(11)(iii) and (iv),
and (g)(13)(iii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (i)(9)(vi); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (i)(11)(ii), (i)(12)(ii), (i)(12)(iii),
(i)(12)(v), and (i)(12)(vi).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.655 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(g) The owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall
submit Periodic Reports no later than 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period when any of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (7) of this section or paragraphs (g)(9) through (14) of this
section is collected. The first 6-month period shall begin on the date
the Notification of Compliance Status report is required to be
submitted. A Periodic Report is not required if none of the events
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section or
paragraphs (g)(9) through (14) of this section occurred during the 6-
month period unless emissions averaging is utilized. Quarterly reports
must be submitted for emission points included in emission averages, as
provided in paragraph (g)(8) of this section. An owner or operator may
submit reports required by other regulations in place of or as part of
the Periodic Report required by this paragraph (g) if the reports
contain the
[[Page 23859]]
information required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (14) of this section.
The Periodic Report must contain company identifier information
(including the company name and address), the beginning and ending
dates of the time period covered by the report, and the information
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (14) of this section, and it
must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 63.10(a) of this part. On or
after April 4, 2024, upon initial startup, or once the form has been
available on the CEDRI website for six months, whichever date is later,
owners or operators must submit all subsequent Periodic Reports in
accordance with Sec. 63.10(a) of this part except for the items in
paragraphs (g)(10)(iv) and (11)(iv) of this section. The items in
paragraphs (g)(10)(iv) and (11)(iv) of this section must be submitted
using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this
subpart and following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except
any medium submitted through mail must be sent to the attention of the
Refinery Sector lead. The date report templates become available will
be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator or delegated
state agency or other authority has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports, the report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted.
* * * * *
(10) For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements Sec.
63.648(j), Periodic Reports must include the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(10)(i) through (iv) of this section. Owners or operators
must submit the Periodic Report in accordance with Sec. 63.10(a) of
this part. On or after April 4, 2024 or once the report template for
this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for six months,
whichever date is later, owners or operators must submit subsequent
Periodic Reports in accordance with Sec. 63.10(a) of this part except
for the items in paragraph (iv) of this section. The items in paragraph
(iv) of this section must be submitted using the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website for this subpart and following the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium submitted
through mail must be sent to the attention of the Refinery Sector lead.
The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. Unless the Administrator or delegated state agency or other
authority has approved a different schedule for submission of reports,
the report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted.
* * * * *
(iv) For each pressure release to the atmosphere during the
reporting period from a pressure relief device in organic HAP service
subject to Sec. 63.648(j)(3), report the following information:
(A) Pressure relief device identification name or number.
(B) The start time and date of the pressure release.
(C) The duration of the pressure release (in hours).
(D) An estimate of the mass quantity of each organic HAP released
(in pounds).
(E) The results of any root cause analysis and corrective action
analysis completed during the reporting period, including the
corrective actions implemented during the reporting period and, if
applicable, the implementation schedule for planned corrective actions
to be implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
(11) For flares subject to Sec. 63.670, Periodic Reports must
include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(11)(i) through (iv)
of this section. Owners or operators must submit the Periodic Report in
accordance with Sec. 63.10(a) of this part. On or after April 4, 2024
or once the report template for this subpart has been available on the
CEDRI website for six months, whichever date is later, owners or
operators must submit subsequent Periodic Reports in accordance with
Sec. 63.10(a) of this part except for the items in paragraph (iv) of
this section. The items in paragraph (iv) of this section must be
submitted using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website and following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except
any medium submitted through mail must be sent to the attention of the
Refinery Sector lead. The date report templates become available will
be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator or delegated
State agency or other authority has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports, the report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted.
* * * * *
(iii) The 15-minute block periods for which the applicable
operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) are not met.
Indicate the date and time for the period, the type of deviation (e.g.,
flare tip velocity, valve position for pressure-assisted flares,
combustion zone net heating value, or net heating value dilution
parameter) and the flare tip velocity, if applicable, and the net
heating value operating parameter(s) determined following the methods
in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) as applicable.
(iv) An indication whether there were any flaring events meeting
the criteria in Sec. 63.670(o)(3) that occurred during the reporting
period. If there were flaring events meeting the criteria in Sec.
63.670(o)(3), report the following information for each such flaring
event:
(A) Flare identification name or number.
(B) The type of flaring event.
(C) The start and stop time and date of the flaring event.
(D) The length of time (in minutes) for which emissions were
visible from the flare during the event.
(E) The periods of time that the flare tip velocity exceeds the
maximum flare tip velocity determined using the methods in Sec.
63.670(d)(2) and the maximum 15-minute block average flare tip velocity
recorded during the event.
(F) Results of the root cause and corrective actions analysis
completed during the reporting period, including the corrective actions
implemented during the reporting period and, if applicable, the
implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be
implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(iii) The lower explosive limit, vessel pressure, or mass of VOC in
the equipment, as applicable, at the start of atmospheric venting. If
the 5 psig vessel pressure option in Sec. 63.643(c)(1)(ii) was used
and active purging was initiated while the concentration of the vapors
was 10 percent or greater of its LEL, also include the concentration of
the vapors at the time active purging was initiated.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(9) * * *
(vi) On and after April 4, 2024, for pressure-assisted flares,
retain records of pressure and valve positions as required in Sec.
63.670(d)(3) for a minimum of 2 years, records of when valve position
was not correct for measured pressure for 5 years, and records of a
cross-light performance demonstration as specified in Sec.
63.670(b)(2) for 5 years.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) Records of the number of releases during each calendar year
and, prior to June 3, 2024, the number of those releases for which the
root cause was determined to be a force majeure event.
[[Page 23860]]
Keep these records for the current calendar year and the past five
calendar years.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(ii) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.643(c)(1)(i)
and the concentration of the vapor at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 10 percent of its LEL, identification of the maintenance vent,
the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent,
the date of maintenance vent opening, and the concentration of the
vapor at the time of the vessel opening.
(iii) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.643(c)(1)(ii)
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the concentration of the vapor at the time of the
active purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent of its LEL,
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent
opening, the pressure of the vessel or equipment at the time of
discharge to the atmosphere and, if applicable, the concentration of
the vapors in the equipment when active purging was initiated.
* * * * *
(v) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.643(c)(1)(iv),
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, records documenting the lack of a
pure hydrogen supply, the date of maintenance vent opening, and the
concentration of the vapors in the equipment at the time of discharge
to the atmosphere for each applicable maintenance vent opening.
(vi) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.643(c)(1)(v),
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, records documenting actions taken
to comply with other applicable alternatives and why utilization of
this alternative was required, the date of maintenance vent opening,
the equipment pressure and concentration of the vapors in the equipment
at the time of discharge, an indication of whether active purging was
performed and the pressure of the equipment during the installation or
removal of the blind if active purging was used, the duration the
maintenance vent was open during the blind installation or removal
process, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the
equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere
for each applicable maintenance vent opening.
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.670 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e), (l)(5) introductory text, (o)(4)(iv),
(o)(6), and (o)(7)(ii) through (o)(7)(v).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.670 Requirements for flare control devices.
* * * * *
(b) Pilot flame presence. The owner or operator shall operate each
flare with a pilot flame present on an individual burner or stage of
burners at all times when regulated material is routed to the flare.
Each 15-minute block during which there is at least one minute where no
pilot flame on an individual burner or stage of burners is present when
regulated material is routed to the flare is a deviation of the
standard. Deviations in different 15-minute blocks from the same event
are considered separate deviations. The owner or operator shall monitor
for the presence of a pilot flame on an individual burner or stage of
burners as specified in paragraph (g) of this section. Beginning on
April 4, 2024, pressure-assisted flares using stages of burners that
cross-light must also comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Each stage of burners that cross-lights in the pressure-
assisted flare must have at least two pilots with at least one
continuously lit and capable of igniting all regulated material that is
routed to that stage of burners.
(2) Unless the owner or operator of a pressure-assisted flare
chooses to conduct a cross-light performance demonstration as specified
in this paragraph, the owner or operator must ensure that if a stage of
burners on the flare uses cross-lighting, that the distance between any
two burners in series on that stage is no more than 6 feet when
measured from the center of one burner to the next burner. A distance
greater than 6 feet between any two burners in series may be used
provided the owner or operator complies with the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a performance demonstration that confirms the
pressure-assisted flare will cross-light a minimum of three burners and
the spacing between the burners and location of the pilot flame must be
representative of the projected installation.
(ii) The compliance demonstration must be approved by the
permitting authority and a copy of this approval must be maintained
onsite.
(iii) The compliance demonstration report must include the
information in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) through (K) of this section.
(A) A protocol describing the test methodology used, associated
test method QA/QC parameters.
(B) The waste gas composition and NHVcz of the gas tested.
(C) The velocity of the waste gas tested.
(D) The pressure-assisted multi-point flare burner tip pressure.
(E) The time, length, and duration of the test.
(F) Records of whether a successful cross-light was observed over
all of the burners and the length of time it took for the burners to
cross-light.
(G) Records of maintaining a stable flame after a successful cross-
light and the duration for which this was observed.
(H) Records of any smoking events during the cross-light.
(I) Waste gas temperature.
(J) Meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature,
barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity)
during the demonstration.
(K) An indication whether there were any observed flare flameouts
and if so, the number and duration of each flare flameout.
* * * * *
(d) Flare tip velocity. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of
this section for pressure-assisted flares, for each flare, the owner or
operator shall comply with either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
section, provided the appropriate monitoring systems are in-place,
whenever regulated material is routed to the flare for at least 15-
minutes and the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless
design capacity of the flare.
* * * * *
(3) Pressure-assisted flares are not subject to the flare tip
velocity limits in either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. In
lieu of the flare tip velocity limits, beginning on April 4, 2024, the
owner or operator of a pressure-assisted flare must install and operate
pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header, as well as a valve
position indicator monitoring system for each staging valve to ensure
that the flare operates within the proper range of conditions as
specified by the manufacturer. The pressure monitor must meet the
requirements in Table 13 of this subpart.
[[Page 23861]]
(e) Combustion zone operating limits. The owner or operator shall
operate the flare to maintain the net heating value of flare combustion
zone gas (NHVcz) at or above the applicable limits in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section determined on a 15-minute
block period basis when regulated material is routed to the flare for
at least 15-minutes. The owner or operator shall monitor and calculate
NHVcz as specified in paragraph (m) of this section.
(1) For all flares other than pressure-assisted flares, 270 British
thermal units per standard cubic feet (Btu/scf).
(2) Beginning on April 4, 2024, for each pressure-assisted flare,
800 Btu/scf.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(5) When a continuous monitoring system is used as provided in
paragraph (j)(1) or (3) of this section and, if applicable, paragraph
(j)(4) of this section, the owner or operator of a flare other than a
pressure-assisted flare may elect to determine the 15-minute block
average NHVvg using either the calculation methods in
paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this section or the calculation methods in
paragraph (l)(5)(ii) of this section. The owner or operator may choose
to comply using the calculation methods in paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this
section for some non-pressure-assisted flares at the petroleum refinery
and comply using the calculation methods (l)(5)(ii) of this section for
other flares. However, for each non-pressure-assisted flare, the owner
or operator must elect one calculation method that will apply at all
times, and use that method for all continuously monitored flare vent
streams associated with that flare. If the owner or operator intends to
change the calculation method that applies to a flare, the owner or
operator must notify the Administrator 30 days in advance of such a
change. For pressure-assisted flares, beginning on April 4, 2024, the
owner or operator must use the calculation method in paragraph
(l)(5)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Prior to June 3, 2024, you may conduct a single root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis for a single event that causes
two or more flares to have a flow event meeting the criteria in
paragraph (o)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, regardless of the
configuration of the flares, if the root cause is reasonably expected
to be a force majeure event, as defined in this subpart.
* * * * *
(6) The owner or operator shall determine the total number of
events for which a root cause and corrective action analyses was
required during the calendar year for each affected flare separately
for events meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of this section
and those meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section.
For the purpose of this requirement, a single root cause analysis
conducted for an event that met both of the criteria in paragraphs
(o)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section would be counted as an event under
each of the separate criteria counts for that flare. Additionally, if a
single root cause analysis was conducted for an event that caused
multiple flares to meet the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(i) or (ii) of
this section, that event would count as an event for each of the flares
for each criteria in paragraph (o)(3) of this section that was met
during that event. Prior to June 3, 2024, the owner or operator shall
also determine the total number of events for which a root cause and
correct action analyses was required and the analyses concluded that
the root cause was a force majeure event, as defined in this subpart.
(7) * * *
(ii) Prior to June 3, 2024, two visible emissions exceedance events
meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of this section that were
not caused by a force majeure event from a single flare in a 3 calendar
year period for the same root cause for the same equipment. On and
after June 3, 2024, two visible emissions exceedance events meeting the
criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of this section from a single flare in
a 3 calendar year period for the same root cause for the same
equipment.
(iii) Prior to June 3, 2024, two flare tip velocity exceedance
events meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section
that were not caused by a force majeure event from a single flare in a
3 calendar year period for the same root cause for the same equipment.
On and after June 3, 2024, two flare tip velocity exceedance events
meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section from a
single flare in a 3 calendar year period for the same root cause for
the same equipment.
(iv) Prior to June 3, 2024, three visible emissions exceedance
events meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of this section that
were not caused by a force majeure event from a single flare in a 3
calendar year period for any reason. On and after June 3, 2024, three
visible emissions exceedance events meeting the criteria in paragraph
(o)(3)(i) of this section from a single flare in a 3 calendar year
period for any reason.
(v) Prior to June 3, 2024, three flare tip velocity exceedance
events meeting the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section
that were not caused by a force majeure event from a single flare in a
3 calendar year period for any reason. On and after June 3, 2024, three
flare tip velocity exceedance events meeting the criteria in paragraph
(o)(3)(ii) of this section from a single flare in a 3 calendar year
period for any reason.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 63.671 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (f).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 63.671 Requirements for flare monitoring systems.
* * * * *
(e) Additional requirements for gas chromatographs. For monitors
used to determine compositional analysis for net heating value per
Sec. 63.670(j)(1) that include a gas chromatograph, the gas
chromatograph must also meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)
through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Beginning on April 4, 2024, the owner or operator must
initially determine the average instrument calibration error during the
Seven (7)-Day Calibration Error Test Period and subsequently perform
daily calibration and quarterly audits using either the compound-
specific calibration error (CE) method provided in paragraph (i) of
this section or using the net heating value (NHV) method provided in
paragraph (ii) of this section.
(i) The average instrument CE for each calibration compound at any
calibration concentration must not differ by more than 10 percent from
the certified cylinder gas value. The CE for each component in the
calibration blend must be calculated using the following equation:
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP24.000
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm).
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm).
(ii) The CE for NHV at any calibration level must not differ by
more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE for
must be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP24.001
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf). NHV
calculations must be based on the individual component properties in
table 12 of this subpart.
[[Page 23862]]
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf).
(f) Additional requirements for continuous process mass
spectrometers. Beginning on April 4, 2024, for continuous process mass
spectrometers used to determine compositional analysis for net heating
value per Sec. 63.670(j)(1) without the use of gas chromatography, the
continuous process mass spectrometer must also meet the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must meet the calibration gas requirements in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section. You may augment the minimum list of calibration
gas components found in paragraph (e)(2) of this section with compounds
found during a pre-survey or known to be in the gas through process
knowledge.
(2) Calibration gas cylinders (i.e., low-, mid-, and high-levels)
must be certified to an accuracy of 2 percent and traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards.
(3) For unknown gas components that have similar analytical mass
fragments to calibration compounds, you may report the unknowns as an
increase in the overlapped calibration gas compound. For unknown
compounds that produce mass fragments that do not overlap calibration
compounds, you may use the response factor for the nearest molecular
weight hydrocarbon in the calibration mix to quantify the unknown
component's net heating value of flare vent gas (NHVvg).
(4) You may use the response factor for n-pentane to quantify any
unknown components detected with a higher molecular weight than n-
pentane.
(5) You must perform an initial calibration to identify mass
fragment overlap and response factors for the target compounds.
(6) You must meet applicable requirements in Table 13 of this
subpart for Net Heating Value by Mass Spectrometer.
(7) The owner or operator must estimate the instrument calibration
error in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
0
8. Amend appendix to subpart CC of part 63 by revising table 13 to read
as follows:
Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63--Tables
* * * * *
Table 13--Calibration and Quality Control Requirements for CPMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum accuracy Calibration
Parameter requirements requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature................. 1 Conduct calibration
percent over the checks at least
normal range of annually; conduct
temperature calibration checks
measured, expressed following any
in degrees Celsius period of more than
(C), or 2.8 degrees 24 hours throughout
C, whichever is which the
greater. temperature
exceeded the
manufacturer's
specified maximum
rated temperature
or install a new
temperature sensor.
At least quarterly,
inspect all
components for
integrity and all
electrical
connections for
continuity,
oxidation, and
galvanic corrosion,
unless the CPMS has
a redundant
temperature sensor.
Record the results
of each calibration
check and
inspection.
Locate the
temperature sensor
in a position that
provides a
representative
temperature; shield
the temperature
sensor system from
electromagnetic
interference and
chemical
contaminants.
Flow Rate for All Flows 5 Conduct a flow
Other Than Flare Vent Gas. percent over the sensor calibration
normal range of check at least
flow measured or biennially (every
1.9 liters per two years); conduct
minute (0.5 gallons a calibration check
per minute), following any
whichever is period of more than
greater, for liquid 24 hours throughout
flow. which the flow rate
exceeded the
manufacturer's
specified maximum
rated flow rate or
install a new flow
sensor.
5 At least quarterly,
percent over the inspect all
normal range of components for
flow measured or leakage, unless the
280 liters per CPMS has a
minute (10 cubic redundant flow
feet per minute), sensor.
whichever is
greater, for gas
flow.
5 Record the results
percent over the of each calibration
normal range check and
measured for mass inspection.
flow.
Locate the flow
sensor(s) and other
necessary equipment
(such as
straightening
vanes) in a
position that
provides
representative
flow; reduce
swirling flow or
abnormal velocity
distributions due
to upstream and
downstream
disturbances.
Flare Vent Gas Flow Rate.... 20 Conduct a flow
percent of flow sensor calibration
rate at velocities check at least
ranging from 0.03 biennially (every
to 0.3 meters per two years); conduct
second (0.1 to 1 a calibration check
feet per second). following any
period of more than
24 hours throughout
which the flow rate
exceeded the
manufacturer's
specified maximum
rated flow rate or
install a new flow
sensor.
5 At least quarterly,
percent of flow inspect all
rate at velocities components for
greater than 0.3 leakage, unless the
meters per second CPMS has a
(1 feet per second). redundant flow
sensor.
Record the results
of each calibration
check and
inspection.
Locate the flow
sensor(s) and other
necessary equipment
(such as
straightening
vanes) in a
position that
provides
representative
flow; reduce
swirling flow or
abnormal velocity
distributions due
to upstream and
downstream
disturbances.
[[Page 23863]]
Pressure.................... 5 Review pressure
percent over the sensor readings at
normal operating least once a week
range or 0.12 for straightline
kilopascals (0.5 (unchanging)
inches of water pressure and
column), whichever perform corrective
is greater. action to ensure
proper pressure
sensor operation if
blockage is
indicated.
Using an instrument
recommended by the
sensor's
manufacturer, check
gauge calibration
and transducer
calibration
annually; conduct
calibration checks
following any
period of more than
24 hours throughout
which the pressure
exceeded the
manufacturer's
specified maximum
rated pressure or
install a new
pressure sensor.
At least quarterly,
inspect all
components for
integrity, all
electrical
connections for
continuity, and all
mechanical
connections for
leakage, unless the
CPMS has a
redundant pressure
sensor.
Record the results
of each calibration
check and
inspection.
Locate the pressure
sensor(s) in a
position that
provides a
representative
measurement of the
pressure and
minimizes or
eliminates
pulsating pressure,
vibration, and
internal and
external corrosion.
Net Heating Value by 2 Specify calibration
Calorimeter. percent of span. requirements in
your site specific
CPMS monitoring
plan. Calibration
requirements should
follow
manufacturer's
recommendations at
a minimum.
Temperature control
(heated and/or
cooled as
necessary) the
sampling system to
ensure proper year-
round operation.
Where feasible,
select a sampling
location at least
two equivalent
diameters
downstream from and
0.5 equivalent
diameters upstream
from the nearest
disturbance. Select
the sampling
location at least
two equivalent duct
diameters from the
nearest control
device, point of
pollutant
generation, air in-
leakages, or other
point at which a
change in the
pollutant
concentration or
emission rate
occurs.
Net Heating Value by Gas As specified in Follow the procedure
Chromatograph. Performance in Performance
Specification 9 of Specification 9 of
40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B. appendix B, except
that a single daily
mid-level
calibration check
can be used (rather
than triplicate
analysis), the
multi-point
calibration can be
conducted quarterly
(rather than
monthly), and the
sampling line
temperature must be
maintained at a
minimum temperature
of 60 [deg]C
(rather than 120
[deg]C).
Net Heating Value by Mass As specified in Follow the procedure
Spectrometer. Performance in Performance
Specifications 9 of Specification 9 of
40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B. appendix B,
including
performing an
initial multi-point
calibration check
at three
concentrations
following the
procedure in
section 10.1 of
Performance
Specification 9,
except that the
multi-point
calibration can be
conducted quarterly
(rather than
monthly), and the
sampling line
temperature must be
maintained at a
minimum temperature
of 60 [deg]C
(rather than 120
[deg]C).
Hydrogen analyzer........... 2 Specify calibration
percent over the requirements in
concentration your site specific
measured or 0.1 CPMS monitoring
volume percent, plan. Calibration
whichever is requirements should
greater. follow
manufacturer's
recommendations at
a minimum.
Where feasible,
select the sampling
location at least
two equivalent duct
diameters from the
nearest control
device, point of
pollutant
generation, air in-
leakages, or other
point at which a
change in the
pollutant
concentration
occurs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23864]]
Subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum
Achievable Control Technology Standards
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.1100 by revising paragraphs (b) and (g)(7)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1100 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Subpart A requirements. The following provisions of subpart A
of this part (General Provisions), Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.5, and
Sec. Sec. 63.12 through 63.15, apply to owners or operators of
affected sources subject to this subpart. For sources that reclassify
from major source to area source status, the applicable provisions of
Sec. 63.9(j) and (k) apply. Beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c), for ethylene production affected
sources, Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(4), (c), (e)(4), and (g)(2), Sec. 63.9(k),
and 63.10(b)(2)(vi) also apply.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(7) * * *
(iii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c), flares subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC and used as a control device for an emission point subject
to the requirements in Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103(e) are only required to
comply with the flare requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
0
10. Amend Sec. 63.1102 by revising paragraphs (c)(11), (d)(2)(ii), and
(e)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1102 Compliance schedule.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(11) The requirements in Sec. 63.1108(a)(4), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2),
and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec. 63.1108(a)(4),
(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec. 63.1108(a)(4),
(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 63.1103 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(iii), (e)(4)(vii)(B), (e)(5)(i)(A),
(e)(5)(i)(B), (e)(5)(ii), and (e)(7)(i);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e)(7)(i)(A) and (e)(7)(i)(B);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (e)(10) introductory text; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(iv).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1103 Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(o)(2)(iii) of subpart
CC, if required to develop a flare management plan and submit it to the
Administrator, then the owner or operator must also submit all versions
of the plan in portable document format (PDF) to the EPA following the
procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium submitted
through U.S. mail must be sent to the attention of the Ethylene
Production Sector Lead.
* * * * *
(vii) * * *
(B) The owner or operator must comply with the NHVcz requirements
in Sec. 63.670(e)(2) of subpart CC;
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The concentration of the vapor in the equipment served by the
maintenance vent is less than 10 percent of its lower explosive limit
(LEL).
(B) If there is no ability to measure the concentration of the
vapor in the equipment based on the design of the equipment, the
pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to
5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or less. Upon opening the
maintenance vent, active purging of the equipment cannot be used until
the concentration of the vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the
equipment if the maintenance is a hatch or similar type of opening) is
less than 10 percent of its LEL.
* * * * *
(ii) Except for maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (e)(5)(i)(C) of this section, the owner or operator must
determine the concentration of the vapor or, if applicable, equipment
pressure using process instrumentation or portable measurement devices
and follow procedures for calibration and maintenance according to
manufacturer's specifications.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) During normal operations, conduct daily inspections of the
firebox burners and repair all burners that are impinging on the
radiant tube(s) as soon as practical, but not later than 1 calendar day
after the flame impingement is found. The owner or operator may delay
burner repair beyond 1 calendar day provided the repair cannot be
completed during normal operations, the burner cannot be shutdown
without significantly impacting the furnace heat distribution and
firing rate, and action is taken to reduce flame impingement as much as
possible during continued operation. If a delay of repair is required
to fully resolve burner flame impingement, repair must be completed
following the next planned decoking operation (and before returning the
ethylene cracking furnace back to normal operations) or during the next
ethylene cracking furnace complete shutdown (when the ethylene cracking
furnace firebox is taken completely offline), whichever is earlier. An
inspection may include, but is not limited to: visual inspection of the
radiant tube(s) for localized bright spots (this may be confirmed with
a temperature gun), use of luminescent powders injected into the burner
to illuminate the flame pattern, or identifying continued localized
coke buildup that causes short runtimes between decoking cycles. A
repair may include, but is not limited to: Taking the burner out of
service, replacing the burner, adjusting the alignment of the burner,
adjusting burner configuration, making burner air corrections,
repairing a malfunction of the fuel liquid removal equipment, or adding
insulation around the radiant tube(s).
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(i) Prior to decoking operation, inspect the applicable ethylene
cracking furnace isolation valve(s) to confirm that the radiant tube(s)
being decoked is completely isolated from the ethylene production
process so that no emissions generated from decoking operations are
sent to the ethylene production process. If poor isolation is
identified, then the owner or operator must rectify the isolation issue
prior to continuing decoking operations to prevent leaks into the
ethylene production process, unless the owner or operator determines
that damage to the radiant tube(s) or ethylene cracking furnace could
occur if the repair was attempted prior to completing a decoking
operation and/or prior to the ethylene cracking furnace being shut
down.
* * * * *
(10) Storage vessel degassing. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c), for each storage vessel
subject to paragraph (b) or (c) of Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103(e), the
owner or operator must comply with
[[Page 23865]]
paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through (iv) of this section during storage
vessel shutdown operations (i.e., emptying and degassing of a storage
vessel) until the vapor space concentration in the storage vessel is
less than 10 percent of the LEL. The owner or operator must determine
the concentration using process instrumentation or portable measurement
devices and follow procedures for calibration and maintenance according
to manufacturer's specifications.
* * * * *
(iv) For floating roof storage vessels, the storage vessel may be
opened to set up equipment (e.g., making connections to a temporary
control device) for the shutdown operations but must not be actively
degassed during this time period.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 63.1107 by revising paragraphs (h)(3)(iv), (h)(3)(v)(B)
and (C), (h)(6) introductory text, and (h)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1107 Equipment leaks.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The owner or operator must determine the total number of
release events that occurred during the calendar year for each affected
pressure relief device separately. Prior to June 3, 2024, the owner or
operator must also determine the total number of release events for
each pressure relief device for which the root cause analysis concluded
that the root cause was a force majeure event, as defined in Sec.
63.1103(e)(2).
(v) * * *
(B) Prior to June 3, 2024, a second release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3-
calendar year period for the same root cause for the same equipment. On
and after June 3, 2024, a second release event from a single pressure
relief device in a 3-calendar year period for the same root cause for
the same equipment.
(C) Prior to June 3, 2024, a third release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3-
calendar year period for any reason. On and after June 3, 2024, a third
release event from a single pressure relief device in a 3-calendar year
period for any reason.
* * * * *
(6) Root cause analysis and corrective action analysis. A root
cause analysis and corrective action analysis must be completed as soon
as possible, but no later than 45 days after a release event. Special
circumstances affecting the number of root cause analyses and/or
corrective action analyses are provided in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) Prior to June 3, 2024, you may conduct a single root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis for a single emergency event
that causes two or more pressure relief devices to release, regardless
of the equipment served, if the root cause is reasonably expected to be
a force majeure event, as defined in Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 63.1109 by revising paragraphs (f)(2), (3), and (5),
and (i)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1109 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.1103(e)(5)(i)(A)
and the concentration of the vapor at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 10 percent of its LEL, records that identify the maintenance
vent, the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance
vent, the date of maintenance vent opening, and the concentration of
the vapor at the time of the vessel opening.
(3) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.1103(e)(5)(i)(B)
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the concentration of the vapor at the time of the
active purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent of its LEL, records
that identify the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent
opening, the pressure of the vessel or equipment at the time of
discharge to the atmosphere and, if applicable, the concentration of
the vapors in the equipment when active purging was initiated.
* * * * *
(5) If complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.1103(e)(5)(i)(D), identification of the maintenance vent, the
process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent,
records documenting actions taken to comply with other applicable
alternatives and why utilization of this alternative was required, the
date of maintenance vent opening, the equipment pressure and
concentration of the vapors in the equipment at the time of discharge,
an indication of whether active purging was performed and the pressure
of the equipment during the installation or removal of the blind if
active purging was used, the duration the maintenance vent was open
during the blind installation or removal process, and records used to
estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment at the time the
maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere for each applicable
maintenance vent opening.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) Records of the number of releases during each calendar year
and, prior to June 3, 2024, the number of those releases for which the
root cause was determined to be a force majeure event. Keep these
records for the current calendar year and the past five calendar years.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 63.1110 by revising paragraphs (a)(10), (e)(4)(iii),
(e)(4)(iv)(A) and (B), (e)(5)(iii), and (e)(8)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1110 Reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(10)(i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in
Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources,
and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected
sources, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart or applicability assessment required by
Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iv), the owner or operator must submit the results
of the performance test or applicability assessment following the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k). Data collected using test
methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of
the test must be submitted in a file format generated through the use
of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website. Data collected using test methods that are not
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the
time of the test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or
alternate electronic file.
(ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c) through (e), the owner or operator must submit all
subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports required under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section in portable document format (PDF)
format to the EPA
[[Page 23866]]
following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k). All subsequent
Periodic Reports required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section must
be submitted to the EPA via CEDRI using the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart and following the
procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k) beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) through (e) or once the
report template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year,
whichever date is later. The date report templates become available
will be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator or
delegated State agency or other authority has approved a different
schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.9(i) and Sec.
63.10(a) of subpart A, the report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. Any medium submitted through mail under Sec. 63.9(k) for
a Notification of Compliance Status report or Periodic Report must be
sent to the attention of the Ethylene Production Sector Lead, Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing Sector Lead, or Carbon Black Production Sector
Lead, as appropriate.
(iii) Beginning no later than the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c) or once the report template for this subpart has been
available on the CEDRI website for six months, whichever date is later,
the items in Sec. 63.1110(e)(4)(iv) and Sec. 63.1110(e)(8)(iii) must
be submitted to the EPA via CEDRI as specified in Sec. 63.9(k) using
the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website for
reporting that information. The report submitted to CEDRI must also
contain company identifier information (including the company name and
address) and the beginning and ending dates of the time period covered
by the report. Once you begin submitting Periodic Reports to CEDRI in
accordance with paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of this section, the items in
Sec. 63.1110(e)(4)(iv) and Sec. 63.1110(e)(8)(iii) must be included
in those Periodic Reports instead of submitting the information using
the separate template.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) The periods specified in Sec. 63.1109(e)(6). Indicate the
date and start time for the period, and the net heating value operating
parameter(s) determined following the methods in Sec. 63.670(k)
through (n) of subpart CC as applicable.
(iv) * * *
(A) Flare identification name or number and the start and stop time
and date of the flaring event.
(B) The length of time (in minutes) that emissions were visible
from the flare during the event.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) The LEL, vessel pressure, or mass of VOC in the equipment, as
applicable, at the start of atmospheric venting. If the 5 psig vessel
pressure option in Sec. 63.1103(e)(5)(i)(B) was used and active
purging was initiated while the concentration of the vapor was 10
percent or greater of its LEL, also include the concentration of the
vapors at the time active purging was initiated.
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec. 63.1107(h)(3), report each pressure release to the atmosphere,
including pressure relief device identification name or number; start
date and start time and duration (in hours) of the pressure release; an
estimate (in pounds) of the mass quantity of each organic HAP released;
the results of any root cause analysis and corrective action analysis
completed during the reporting period, including the corrective actions
implemented during the reporting period; and, if applicable, the
implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be
implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
* * * * *
Subpart EEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
0
15. Amend Sec. 63.2346 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (e).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2346 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
(a) * * *
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), tank emissions during storage tank shutdown operations
(i.e., emptying and degassing of a storage tank) for each storage tank
at an affected source storing organic liquids that meets the tank
capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in items 2
through 6 of Table 2 to this subpart, or items 1 through 3 of Table 2b
to this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iv)
of this section during tank emptying and degassing until the vapor
space concentration in the tank is less than 10 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL). The owner or operator must determine the
concentration using process instrumentation or portable measurement
devices and follow procedures for calibration and maintenance according
to manufacturer's specifications.
* * * * *
(iv) For floating roof storage tanks, the storage tank may be
opened to set up equipment (e.g., making connections to a temporary
control device) for the shutdown operations but must not be actively
degassed during this time period.
* * * * *
(e) Operating limits. For each high throughput transfer rack, you
must meet each operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart for each
control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart
whenever emissions from the loading of organic liquids are routed to
the control device. Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this
section, for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, you
must comply with paragraph (l) of this section and the requirements for
monitored parameters as specified in subpart SS of this part, for
storage tanks and, during the loading of organic liquids, for low
throughput transfer racks, respectively. Alternatively, you may comply
with the operating limits in table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 63.2378 by revising and republishing paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?
* * * * *
(e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section no longer apply.
Instead, you must be in compliance with each emission limitation,
operating limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a)
of this section at all times, except during periods of nonoperation of
the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies and must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
[[Page 23867]]
(e)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable. Equipment subject to
the work practice standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to
this subpart, item 4 are not subject to this paragraph (e).
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this
section, the use of a bypass line at any time on a closed vent system
to divert a vent stream to the atmosphere or to a control device not
meeting the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section is
an emissions standards deviation.
(2) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.983(a)(3), then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.983(a)(3) and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and 63.999(c)(2), in
addition to Sec. 63.2346(l), the recordkeeping requirements specified
in Sec. 63.2390(g), and the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.2386(c)(12).
(3) Periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device used
to control storage tank breathing loss emissions, during which the
control device does not meet the emission limits in Table 2 or 2b to
this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year. The level of material
in the storage tank shall not be increased during periods that the
closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned
routine maintenance.
(4) If you elect to route emissions from storage tanks to a fuel
gas system or to a process, as allowed by Sec. 63.982(d), to comply
with the emission limits in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart, the total
aggregate amount of time during which the breathing loss emissions
bypass the fuel gas system or process during the calendar year without
being routed to a control device, for all reasons (except product
changeovers of flexible operation units and periods when a storage tank
has been emptied and degassed), must not exceed 240 hours. The level of
material in the storage tank shall not be increased during periods that
the fuel gas system or process is bypassed.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 63.2382 by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2382 What notifications must I submit and when and what
information should be submitted?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Submitting Notification of Compliance Status. Beginning no
later than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), you must
submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports in
portable document format (PDF) format to the EPA following the
procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium submitted
through mail must be sent to the attention of the Organic Liquids
Distribution Sector Lead.
0
18. Amend Sec. 63.2386 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f), (g), and (h); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2386 What reports must I submit and when and what information
is to be submitted in each?
* * * * *
(f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must submit all Compliance reports to the EPA following
the procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium submitted
through U.S. mail must be sent to the attention of the Organic Liquids
Distribution Sector Lead. You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date report
templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless
the Administrator or delegated state agency or other authority has
approved a different schedule for submission of reports under
Sec. Sec. 63.9(i) and 63.10(a), the report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted.
(g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance test reports in
accordance with this paragraph. Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k).
Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Data collected using test methods that are not
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the
time of the test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or
alternate electronic file.
(h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance evaluation reports in
accordance with this paragraph. Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2) that includes a
relative accuracy test audit (RATA), you must submit the results of the
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in Sec.
63.9(k). The results of performance evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA
pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's
ERT website at the time of the evaluation must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website. The results of performance evaluations of CEMS
measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as
listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation must be
included as an attachment in the ERT or alternate electronic file.
Sec. 63.2406 [Amended]
0
19. Amend Sec. 63.2406 by removing the definition of ``Force majeure
event''.
0
20. Amend table 12 to subpart EEEE of part 63 by:
0
a. Adding the entry ``63.7(a)(4)'' in numerical order; and
0
b. Revising the entry ``63.9(k)''.
The addition and revision read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEE
* * * * *
[[Page 23868]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(a)(4).................... Force Majeure-- Requirements to claim a Yes.
Performance Testing delay in conducting a
Delay. performance test due
to force majeure.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Procedure to report Yes.
procedures. electronically for
notifications and
reports.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart FFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
0
21. Amend Sec. 63.2450 by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(5)(iv),
(e)(5)(viii)(B), (e)(6)(i), (e)(7) introductory text, (v)(1)(i),
(v)(1)(ii), and (v)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485 or paragraph (e)(7) of
this section, if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to any combination of control devices
(except a flare) or recovery devices, you must meet the requirements of
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and the requirements of Sec.
63.982(c) and the requirements referenced therein.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Instead of complying with paragraph (o)(2)(iii) of Sec.
63.670 of subpart CC, if required to develop a flare management plan
and submit it to the Administrator, then you must also submit all
versions of the plan in portable document format (PDF) to the EPA
following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium
submitted through mail must be sent to the attention of the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector Lead.
* * * * *
(viii) * * *
(B) You must comply with the NHVcz requirements in paragraph (e)(2)
of Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC;
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.148(f) of subpart G, then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.148(f) of subpart G and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.148(j)(2) and (3) of subpart G,
and Sec. 63.148(i)(3) of subpart G, in addition to the applicable
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2485(q), the recordkeeping
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2525(n), and the reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2520(e)(12).
* * * * *
(7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to an adsorber(s) that cannot be
regenerated or a regenerative adsorber(s) that is regenerated offsite,
then you must comply with paragraphs (e)(4) and (6) of this section,
Sec. 63.2470(c)(3), Sec. Sec. 63.2520(d)(6) and (e)(13), Sec.
63.2525(o), the requirements in Sec. 63.983 including the requirements
referenced therein, and you must install a system of two or more
adsorber units in series and comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (e)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The vapor in the equipment served by the maintenance vent has a
concentration less than 10 percent of its lower explosive limit (LEL)
and has an outlet concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP.
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the concentration of the
vapor in the equipment based on the design of the equipment, the
pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to
5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or less. Upon opening the
maintenance vent, active purging of the equipment cannot be used until
the concentration of the vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the
equipment if the maintenance is a hatch or similar type of opening) is
less than 10 percent of its LEL.
* * * * *
(2) Except for maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (v)(1)(iii) of this section, you must determine the
concentration of the vapor or, if applicable, equipment pressure using
process instrumentation or portable measurement devices and follow
procedures for calibration and maintenance according to manufacturer's
specifications.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 63.2460 by revising paragraph (c)(9) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) Requirements for a biofilter. If you use a biofilter to meet
either the 95-percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration
requirement specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 63.2470 by revising paragraph (f) introductory text and
adding paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?
* * * * *
(f) Storage tank degassing. Beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), for each storage tank subject to
item 1 of Table 4 to this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section during storage tank shutdown
operations (i.e., emptying and degassing of a storage tank) until the
vapor space concentration in the storage tank is less than 10 percent
of the LEL. You must determine the concentration using process
instrumentation or portable measurement devices and follow procedures
for calibration and maintenance according to manufacturer's
specifications.
* * * * *
[[Page 23869]]
(4) For floating roof storage tanks, the storage tank may be opened
to set up equipment (e.g., making connections to a temporary control
device) for the shutdown operations but must not be actively degassed
during this time period.
0
24. Amend Sec. 63.2480 by revising paragraphs (a), (e)(2)(ii),
(e)(2)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), (e)(3)(v)(B), (e)(3)(v)(C), (e)(6)(ii),
(f)(18)(iii), (f)(18)(vi), (f)(18)(x), and (f)(18)(xiii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?
(a) You must meet each requirement in table 6 to this subpart that
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section. For each light liquid pump, pressure
relief device, and connector in ethylene oxide service as defined in
Sec. 63.2550(i), you must also meet the applicable requirements
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2492 and 63.2493(d) and (e).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) If the pressure relief device includes a rupture disk, either
comply with the requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section
(and do not replace the rupture disk) or install a replacement disk as
soon as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure release.
(iii) If the pressure relief device consists only of a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release. You must not initiate startup of the equipment served by the
rupture disk until the rupture disc is replaced.
(3) * * *
(iv) You must determine the total number of release events that
occurred during the calendar year for each affected pressure relief
device separately. Prior to June 3, 2024, you must also determine the
total number of release events for each pressure relief device for
which the root cause analysis concluded that the root cause was a force
majeure event, as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
(v) * * *
(B) Prior to June 3, 2024, a second release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3
calendar year period for the same root cause for the same equipment. On
and after June 3, 2024, a second release event from a single pressure
relief device in a 3 calendar year period for the same root cause for
the same equipment.
(C) Prior to June 3, 2024, a third release event not including
force majeure events from a single pressure relief device in a 3
calendar year period for any reason. On and after June 3, 2024, a third
release event from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar year
period for any reason.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Prior to June 3, 2024, you may conduct a single root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis for a single emergency event
that causes two or more pressure relief devices to release, regardless
of the equipment served, if the root cause is reasonably expected to be
a force majeure event, as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(18) * * *
(iii) In Sec. 63.181(b)(3)(i), replace the reference to Sec.
63.165(a) with Sec. 63.2480(e)(1).
* * * * *
(vi) The information in Sec. 63.165(a) required to be reported
under Sec. 63.182(d)(2)(xiv) is now required to be reported under
Sec. 63.2520(e)(15)(i) through (iii).
* * * * *
(x) The reference to Sec. 63.1030(c) in Sec. 63.1023(a)(1)(v) no
longer applies. Instead comply with the Sec. 63.2480(e)(1) and (2).
* * * * *
(xiii) The information in Sec. 63.1030(b) required to be reported
under Sec. 63.1039(b)(4) is now required to be reported under Sec.
63.2520(e)(15)(i) and (ii).
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 63.2490 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4)(iii)
introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (e).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2490 What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?
(a) You must comply with each requirement in Table 10 to this
subpart that applies to your heat exchange systems, except as specified
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Unless one or more of the conditions specified in Sec.
63.104(a)(1), (2), (5), and (6) or paragraph (e) of this section are
met, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified in Table 10
to this subpart and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section no longer
apply. Instead, you must monitor the cooling water for the presence of
total strippable hydrocarbons that indicate a leak according to
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and if you detect a leak, then you
must repair it according to paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section,
unless repair is delayed according to paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
At any time before the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g),
you may choose to comply with the requirements in this paragraph (d) in
lieu of the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified in Table 10 to
this subpart and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The
requirements in this paragraph (d) do not apply to heat exchange
systems that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute or less.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) The delay of repair action level is a total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv
or, for heat exchange systems with a recirculation rate of 10,000
gallons per minute or less, the delay of repair action level is a total
hydrocarbon mass emissions rate (as methane) of 1.8 kg/hr. The delay of
repair action level is assessed as described in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
(e) If 99 percent by weight or more of the organic compounds that
could leak into the heat exchange system are water soluble and have a
Henry's Law Constant less than 5.0E-6 at 25 degrees Celsius
(atmospheres-cubic meters/mol) and none of the conditions specified in
Sec. 63.104(a)(1), (2), (5), and (6) are met, beginning no later than
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), you may monitor the
cooling water for leaks according to the requirements in Sec.
63.104(b) in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method. If you detect a
leak according to Sec. 63.104(b), then you must repair it according to
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless repair is delayed according to
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(1) If a leak is detected using the methods described in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must repair the leak as soon as practicable,
but no later than 45 days after identifying the leak, except as
specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. Repair must include re-
monitoring at the monitoring location where the leak was identified to
verify that the criteria in Sec. 63.104(b)(6) is no longer met.
Actions that can be taken to
[[Page 23870]]
achieve repair include but are not limited to:
(i) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
(ii) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
(iii) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process
fluid;
(iv) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
(v) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise removing the leaking heat
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
(2) You may delay repair when the conditions in Sec. 63.104(e) are
met.
0
26. Amend Sec. 63.2492 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2492 How do I determine whether my process vent, storage
tank, or equipment is in ethylene oxide service?
* * * * *
(b) For storage tanks, you must determine the concentration of
ethylene oxide of the fluid stored in the storage tanks by complying
with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) You must measure the concentration of ethylene oxide of the
fluid stored in the storage tanks using Method 624.1 of 40 CFR part
136, appendix A, or preparation by Method 5031 and analysis by Method
8260D (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) in the SW-846
Compendium. In lieu of preparation by SW-846 Method 5031, you may use
SW-846 Method 5030B (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), as
long as: You do not use a preservative in the collected sample; you
store the sample with minimal headspace as cold as possible and at
least below 4 degrees C; and you analyze the sample as soon as
possible, but in no case longer than 7 days from the time the sample
was collected. If you are collecting a sample from a pressure vessel,
you must maintain the sample under pressure both during and following
sampling.
(2) Unless specified by the Administrator, you may calculate the
concentration of ethylene oxide of the fluid stored in the storage
tanks if information specific to the fluid stored is available.
Information specific to the fluid stored includes concentration data
from safety data sheets.
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 63.2493 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) introductory
text, (a)(2)(vi)(C), (a)(2)(viii), (b)(2), (b)(4) introductory text,
(b)(4)(iv), (b)(6), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(3), (d)(4)(v), and
(e) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2493 What requirements must I meet for process vents, storage
tanks, or equipment that are in ethylene oxide service?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
scrubber with a reactant tank, then you must establish operating
parameter limits by monitoring the operating parameters specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(vi)(A) through (C) of this section during the
performance test.
* * * * *
(C) Temperature of the scrubber liquid entering the scrubber
column. The temperature may be measured at any point after the heat
exchanger and prior to entering the top of the scrubber column.
Determine the average inlet scrubber liquid temperature as the average
of the test run averages.
* * * * *
(viii) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
control device other than a flare, scrubber with a reactant tank, or
thermal oxidizer, then you must notify the Administrator of the
operating parameters that you plan to monitor during the performance
test prior to establishing operating parameter limits for the control
device.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces ethylene oxide to less than 1 ppmv as specified in Table
1, 2, or 4 to this subpart, and you choose to comply with paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, then continuously monitor the ethylene oxide
concentration at the exit of the control device using an FTIR CEMS
meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 15 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix B, and Sec. 63.2450(j). If you use an FTIR CEMS, you do
not need to conduct the performance testing required in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section or the operating parameter monitoring required
in paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
scrubber with a reactant tank, then you must comply with Sec.
63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you
must meet the operating parameter limits specified in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) Maximum temperature of the scrubber liquid entering the
scrubber column, equal to the average temperature measured during the
most recent performance test. Compliance with the inlet scrubber liquid
temperature operating limit must be determined continuously on a 1-hour
block basis. Use a temperature sensor with a minimum accuracy of 1 percent over the normal range of the temperature measured,
expressed in degrees Celsius, or 2.8 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater.
* * * * *
(6) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a control
device other than a flare, scrubber with a reactant tank, or thermal
oxidizer, then you must comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the
requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you must monitor the operating
parameters identified in paragraph (a)(2)(viii) of this section and
meet the established operating parameter limits to ensure continuous
compliance. The frequency of monitoring and averaging time will be
determined based upon the information provided to the Administrator.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
Delay of repair of pumps for which leaks have been detected is allowed
for pumps that are isolated from the process and that do not remain in
ethylene oxide service.
(2) * * *
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
Delay of repair of connectors for which leaks have been detected is
allowed for connectors that are isolated from the process and that do
not remain in ethylene oxide service.
(3) For each light liquid pump or connector in ethylene oxide
service that is added to an MCPU, and for each light liquid pump or
connector in ethylene oxide service that replaces a light liquid pump
or connector in ethylene oxide service, you must initially monitor for
leaks within 5 days after initial startup of the equipment.
(4) * * *
(v) Replace all references to Sec. 63.2445(g) with Sec.
63.2445(i).
(e) Non-applicable referenced provisions. The referenced provisions
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (16) of this section do not
apply when demonstrating compliance with this section.
* * * * *
[[Page 23871]]
0
28. Amend Sec. 63.2515 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(d) Supplement to Notification of Compliance Status. You must also
submit supplements to the Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.2520(d)(3) through (6).
0
29. Amend Sec. 63.2520 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(2), (e)(14)(iii),
(e)(16), (f) and (g); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (h) and (i).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must contain the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(2) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) For adsorbers subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.2450(e)(7), you must also submit the information listed in
paragraphs (d)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section in a supplement to the
Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first
applicable compliance date.
(i) Whether the adsorber cannot be regenerated or is a regenerative
adsorber(s) that is regenerated off site.
(ii) The breakthrough limit and adsorber bed life established
during the initial performance test or design evaluation of the
adsorber.
(e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (17) of this
section. On and after August 12, 2023 or once the reporting template
for this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year,
whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent reports
following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.9(k), except any medium
submitted through mail must be sent to the attention of the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector Lead. You must use
the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this
subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on
the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator or delegated state agency
or other authority has approved a different schedule for submission of
reports under Sec. Sec. 63.9(i) and 63.10(a) of subpart A, the report
must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless
of the method in which the report is submitted.
* * * * *
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report. If your report is submitted via CEDRI, the certifier's
electronic signature during the submission process replaces the
requirement in this paragraph (e)(2).
* * * * *
(14) * * *
(iii) The lower explosive limit in percent, vessel pressure in
psig, or mass in pounds of VOC in the equipment, as applicable, at the
start of atmospheric venting. If the 5 psig vessel pressure option in
Sec. 63.2450(v)(1)(ii) was used and active purging was initiated while
the concentration of the vapor was 10 percent or greater of its LEL,
also include the concentration of the vapors at the time active purging
was initiated.
* * * * *
(16) For each heat exchange system subject to Sec. 63.2490(d) or
(e), beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the reporting requirements of Sec. 63.104(f)(2) no longer
apply; instead, the compliance report must include the information
specified in paragraphs (e)(16)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) The number of heat exchange systems at the plant site subject
to the monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.2490(d) or (e) during the
reporting period;
(ii) The number of heat exchange systems subject to the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.2490(d) or (e) at the plant site found to be
leaking during the reporting period;
(iii) For each monitoring location where a leak was identified
during the reporting period, identification of the monitoring location
(e.g., unique monitoring location or heat exchange system ID number),
the measured total strippable hydrocarbon concentration or total
hydrocarbon mass emissions rate (if complying with Sec. 63.2490(d)) or
the measured concentration of the monitored substance(s) (if complying
with Sec. 63.2490(e)), the date the leak was first identified, and, if
applicable, the date the source of the leak was identified;
(iv) For leaks that were repaired during the reporting period
(including delayed repairs), identification of the monitoring location
associated with the repaired leak, the total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration or total hydrocarbon mass emissions rate (if complying
with Sec. 63.2490(d)) or the measured concentration of the monitored
substance(s) (if complying with Sec. 63.2490(e)) measured during re-
monitoring to verify repair, and the re-monitoring date (i.e., the
effective date of repair); and
(v) For each delayed repair, identification of the monitoring
location associated with the leak for which repair is delayed, the date
when the delay of repair began, the date the repair is expected to be
completed (if the leak is not repaired during the reporting period),
the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration or total hydrocarbon
mass emissions rate (if complying with Sec. 63.2490(d)) or the
measured concentration of the monitored substance(s) (if complying with
Sec. 63.2490(e)) and date of each monitoring event conducted on the
delayed repair during the reporting period, and an estimate in pounds
of the potential total hydrocarbon emissions or monitored substance(s)
emissions over the reporting period associated with the delayed repair.
* * * * *
(f) Performance test reports. Beginning no later than October 13,
2020, you must submit performance test reports in accordance with this
paragraph (f). Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, within 60
days after the date of completing each performance test required by
this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test
following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k). Data collected
using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at
the time of the test must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Data collected using test
methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's
ERT website at the time of the test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or alternate electronic file.
(g) CEMS relative accuracy test audit (RATA) Performance evaluation
reports. Beginning no later than October 13, 2020, you must start
submitting CEMS RATA performance evaluation reports in accordance with
this paragraph (g).
[[Page 23872]]
Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, within 60 days after the
date of completing each continuous monitoring system performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2) that includes a RATA, you must
submit the results of the performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k). The results of performance
evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
evaluation must be submitted in a file format generated through the use
of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. The
results of performance evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA pollutants
that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT
website at the time of the evaluation must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or alternate electronic file.
0
30. Amend Sec. 63.2525 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (o), (p)(2), (p)(3), (p)(5), (q)(2), (r)(1),
(r)(4)(iv) introductory text, (r)(4)(iv)(B) and (r)(4)(iv)(C); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (r)(4)(iv)(D).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2525 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(o) For each nonregenerative adsorber and regenerative adsorber
that is regenerated offsite subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(7), you must keep the applicable records specified in
paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Breakthrough limit and bed life established according to Sec.
63.2450(e)(7)(i).
(2) Each outlet HAP or TOC concentration measured according to
Sec. Sec. 63.2450(e)(7)(ii) and (e)(7)(iii).
(3) Date and time you last replaced the adsorbent.
(p) * * *
(2) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(v)(1)(i)
and the concentration of the vapor at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 10 percent of its LEL, identification of the maintenance vent,
the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent,
the date of maintenance vent opening, and the concentration of the
vapor at the time of the vessel opening.
(3) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(v)(1)(ii)
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the concentration of the vapor at the time of the
active purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent of its LEL,
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent
opening, the pressure of the vessel or equipment at the time of
discharge to the atmosphere and, if applicable, the concentration of
the vapors in the equipment when active purging was initiated.
* * * * *
(5) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(v)(1)(iv),
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, records documenting actions taken
to comply with other applicable alternatives and why utilization of
this alternative was required, the date of maintenance vent opening,
the equipment pressure and concentration of the vapors in the equipment
at the time of discharge, an indication of whether active purging was
performed and the pressure of the equipment during the installation or
removal of the blind if active purging was used, the duration the
maintenance vent was open during the blind installation or removal
process, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the
equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere
for each applicable maintenance vent opening.
(q) * * *
(2) Records of the number of releases during each calendar year
and, prior to June 3, 2024, the number of those releases for which the
root cause was determined to be a force majeure event. Keep these
records for the current calendar year and the past 5 calendar years.
* * * * *
(r) * * *
(1) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.2490(d) and (e) that
indicate a leak, the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the
basis for determining there is no leak.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) An estimate of the potential total hydrocarbon emissions (if
you monitor the cooling water for leaks according to Sec.
63.2490(d)(1)) or monitored substance(s) emissions (if you monitor the
cooling water for leaks according to Sec. 63.2490(e)) from the leaking
heat exchange system or heat exchanger for each required delay of
repair monitoring interval following the procedures in paragraphs
(r)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
* * * * *
(B) For delay of repair monitoring intervals prior to repair of the
leak, calculate the potential total hydrocarbon emissions or monitored
substance(s) emissions for the leaking heat exchange system or heat
exchanger for the monitoring interval by multiplying the mass emissions
rate, determined in Sec. 63.2490(d)(1)(iii)(B) or paragraph
(r)(4)(iv)(A) or (D) of this section, by the duration of the delay of
repair monitoring interval. The duration of the delay of repair
monitoring interval is the time period starting at midnight on the day
of the previous monitoring event or at midnight on the day the repair
would have had to be completed if the repair had not been delayed,
whichever is later, and ending at midnight of the day the of the
current monitoring event.
(C) For delay of repair monitoring intervals ending with a repaired
leak, calculate the potential total hydrocarbon emissions or monitored
substance(s) emissions for the leaking heat exchange system or heat
exchanger for the final delay of repair monitoring interval by
multiplying the duration of the final delay of repair monitoring
interval by the mass emissions rate determined for the last monitoring
event prior to the re-monitoring event used to verify the leak was
repaired. The duration of the final delay of repair monitoring interval
is the time period starting at midnight of the day of the last
monitoring event prior to re-monitoring to verify the leak was repaired
and ending at the time of the re-monitoring event that verified that
the leak was repaired.
(D) If you monitor the cooling water for leaks according to Sec.
63.2490(e), you must calculate the mass emissions rate by determining
the mass flow rate of the cooling water at the monitoring location
where the leak was detected. Cooling water mass flow rates may be
determined using direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance
calculations, or other engineering methods. Once determined, multiply
the mass flow rate of the cooling water by the concentration of the
measured substance(s).
* * * * *
0
31. Amend Sec. 63.2550 by revising the entry ``In ethylene oxide
service'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
In ethylene oxide service means the following:
(1) For equipment leaks, any equipment that contains or contacts a
fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of
ethylene oxide. If information exists that suggests ethylene
[[Page 23873]]
oxide could be present in equipment, the equipment is considered to be
``in ethylene oxide service'' unless sampling and analysis is performed
as specified in Sec. 63.2492 to demonstrate that the equipment does
not meet the definition of being ``in ethylene oxide service''.
Examples of information that could suggest ethylene oxide could be
present in equipment, include calculations based on safety data sheets,
material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test results
provided the results are still relevant to the current operating
conditions.
(2) For process vents, each batch and continuous process vent in a
process that, when uncontrolled, contains a concentration of greater
than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted ethylene oxide, and when combined,
the sum of all these process vents would emit uncontrolled ethylene
oxide emissions greater than or equal to 5 lb/yr (2.27 kg/yr). If
information exists that suggests ethylene oxide could be present in a
batch or continuous process vent, then the batch or continuous process
vent is considered to be ``in ethylene oxide service'' unless an
analysis is performed as specified in Sec. 63.2492 to demonstrate that
the batch or continuous process vent does not meet the definition of
being ``in ethylene oxide service''. Examples of information that could
suggest ethylene oxide could be present in a batch or continuous
process vent, include calculations based on safety data sheets,
material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test results
provided the results are still relevant to the current operating
conditions.
(3) For storage tanks, storage tanks of any capacity and vapor
pressure storing a liquid that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of
ethylene oxide. If knowledge exists that suggests ethylene oxide could
be present in a storage tank, then the storage tank is considered to be
``in ethylene oxide service'' unless the procedures specified in Sec.
63.2492 are performed to demonstrate that the storage tank does not
meet the definition of being ``in ethylene oxide service''. The
exemptions for ``vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only
as impurities'' and ``pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of
204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere'' listed in
the definition of ``storage tank'' in this section do not apply for
storage tanks that may be in ethylene oxide service. Examples of
information that could suggest ethylene oxide could be present in a
storage tank, include calculations based on safety data sheets,
material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test results
provided the results are still relevant to the current operating
conditions.
* * * * *
0
32. Revise table 10 to subpart FFFF of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Work Practice Standards for Heat
Exchange Systems
As required in Sec. 63.2490, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as defined in a. Comply with the requirements
Sec. 63.101. of Sec. 63.104 and the
requirements referenced therein,
except as specified in Sec.
63.2490(b) and (c); or
b. Comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.2490(d); or
c. Comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.2490(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
33. Amend table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 by revising entry
``63.9(k)'' to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFF
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-05906 Filed 4-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P